A post from earlier this week discussed a less risky, dependency-reduced, stepping-stone transformation approach. It contrasted with the big-bang delivery model that’s often proposed on OSS projects.
Taking the same train of thought, have you noticed how often architects (including myself) come up with an end-state view of what an OSS, or IT, or networks will be? Have you also noticed that they often seek to demonstrate the cleverness of their architecture in the end-state?
To be honest, I’m more impressed with architectures that cleverly guide a reader through the minefield of complexity via multiple lesser steps and steer towards an intended end-state. To be equally honest, this type of architecture is probably part-roadmap, part-architecture. The journey often demonstrates the impracticality of an ideal end-state.
This may lead to an OSS with compromises but at least it’s not compromised.
The big-bang end-state might look really impressive on paper, but not be viable for the delivery team.Read the Passionate About OSS Blog for more or Subscribe to the Passionate About OSS Blog by Email