Well, it doesn't bring anything new to the table. We already know and agree that XP can be dangerous when used wrong -- heck, even water is lethal if consumed in excess (think drowning)... Ok, bad metaphor, sorry The author of that critique has a point though. It is a real danger that more and more projects adopt XP for the sake of <anything but the correct reasons>. But how does this differ from using RUP/Spiral/Waterfall/Scrum/Cleanroom/whatever process the wrong way?
It's not convincing to me - it seems to be full of flaws and misconceptions about XP. Already the first sentence, "you really need to do all of XP or none at all", is totally bogus. I am doing "part of XP" all the time. I whish I could do more, because it would be even more effective, though. I am working on it... Taking a close look at the second page, you will find out that in the last paragraph, it is not the on-site-customer which is dependent on "no detailed written requirements" (let's for the sake of the argument suppose that those two are true as written), but the other way round. So there is no "ring" at all. I could go on and on, but it's a very frustrating experience. I'd rather not go that way. If you'd explain what points you find most appealing about the paper, I would certainly like to comment, though.
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Think only on those things that are in line with your principles and can bear the light of day. The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny - it is the light that guides your way. - Heraclitus