I didn’t say /all/ XP thought leaders or the community in general
criticized the branding of IXP. Like you said, it was criticized by
some leaders like Ron Jeffries and by some members of the agile
community. I don’t know which other facts you believed were incorrect.

Some of the statements about the misleading or deceptive potential of
IXP branding include: “the marketplace WILL be confused” (Ron Jeffries)
and “we should be careful that when we differentiate we don’t imply
that other agile approaches don’t work” (Michael Feathers). Other
comments (not necessarily community leaders) included “[IXP’s] current
message weakens the agile movement” (Ron Jeffries) and “[IXP] sets up
a false dichotomy that can cause confusion and even damage to people
who aren’t doing ‘Industrial XP.’” (Chris Hanson).

But, again, my point was actually that the branding has /not/ been
significantly harmful and Industrial Logic had good reason to not
change the name even if it was potentially misleading for some people
or because some people feared it would harm the community.

No, I don’t think that discussions of potentially misleading language
prevents an organic evolution of CSM certification. It’s the negative
form of that discussion that I feel is relatively ineffective and
sometimes disappointing. Even in the best case, a claim only that
something confuses somebody is not, in itself, a compelling force for
change.

I thought the agile certification April Fool’s joke was entertaining,
but I don’t feel it helps to further the debate on the CSM
certification issue. In the context of this specific discussion I feel
it’s a bit disrespectful to the Scrum community.

Steve

The most notable objections to IXP came from Ron Jeffries, who objects to all agile brand names in general (like Scrum, Lean, Crystal, etc.). To my mind, Ron’s objections may have merit — we need to continue that discussion.

I do not recall anyone ever saying that IXP was deceptive. That’s convenient to say in order to make your argument, yet I’d like to see some proof of that claim.

Many of us find that the words “Certified” and “Master” are easily misunderstood — even people who teach the CSM program! It sounds like you think that by pointing out what we believe is misleading language, you think we are preventing the organic evolution of the CSM program. Do you really believe that? If so, do you suggest that we somehow not mention that which we find to be misleading, lest our comments threaten organic growth?

There were numerous folks who felt that discussing the CSM program on the Scrum development list was entirely appropriate. Scrum’s though leaders disagreed, and several folks were banned, including myself. After the banning, several folks continued the CSM discussion, saying very positive things about CSM. None of them were banned or even criticized for continuing the discussion. I find that to be unfortunate.

I am encouraged to see a competing certification program now available on the internet. On April 1st, 2007, someone announced a site called http://agilecertificationnow.com. It allows folks to get certified with one click of a mouse button! I’m happy to see that organic evolution in the agile certification business. I still don’t plan to get certified, but the hordes of folks who desire certification now have another set of letters they can put beside their name: Certified ASS (Agile Software Specialist).