I have a silly superstition that any project with a cool, cutesy, or grand-sounding codename is doomed to failure. We’re breaking my own rule by calling a new infrastucture subsystem “Firefly” (we’re all Firefly/Serenity fans) and talking about a new consolidated dashboard for supporting our messaging workflow called “Highlander.” We actually caused our senior management some consternation when they started to see “Firefly” in our story names on our iteration plans. The codename doesn’t even remotely correlate to the business driver behind our project, and the manager’s alarm is perfectly understandable. They were afraid we were off on some silly techie tangent, instead of what they cared about (business solution). Hopefully we’ve managed to alleviate their concerns by communicating that Firefly is a prerequisite infrastructure requirement for the larger project.
We’re keeping the Firefly name internally, but I think we’re going to be a little more careful about using the term. I suggested making the official name the “[Company Name] Communication Foundation,” but that went over like a lead balloon.
And I’m still mad about Wash.