Hey, that's not new either!
Nope, just wanted to say that I have heard this for quite some time now, and franckly, what's the point...
Mainstream methodologies have one thing that XP does not have yet: a process that certifies that people have attended courses, used them (to some extend, if you have not used them, you can say what you would have done if you had to use it) or would be ready to use them.
In the end, you get a certification in the form of a nice (sometimes not so nice) diploma that you can put away in a drawer and forget until you are looking for another job. What else, you don't even have to use what you've learnt!
Look at SCRUM, there are a growing number of Scrum Masters around: I predict that SCRUM will become Mainstream before XP! Why? Because when you get certified for something, you put it on your CV, you make it visible for people to see it, you raise there awareness of what it is, you generate interest for what it delivers, you belong to a group and can prove some sort of power from above ("thee" who certified you).
But once again, what's the point? The point is, what is the point?
what would being part of the Mainstream methodologies bring to XP anyway?
XP practitioners would be recognised? they would be paid a lot more money? Managers would listen to them more? They would have better tools? They would be happier in their jobs? Or is just that we believe that it is the only way for companies to take XP values and practices seriously?
Utlimately, becoming mainstream may result in a complete halt to the entire XP community thinking about improving how XP works and delivers. Not being mainstream is the trademark of something evolving, avant-garde, and some organisations are looking for these.
Maybe we should be looking at which organisations are in the XP stream instead ;-)
