Gaining knowledge is not the same as asking questions

"Does anyone know how xyz works?"

-- silence --

"Guys, I really need to know how xyz works."

-- silence --

Does this sound familiar? It's rude that nobody answers? Right? After all, somebody should know the answer. It's not like your question is difficult. Right? You are asking something relatively straightforward that certainly somebody must know. If they won't tell you, how do they expect knowledge to spread? How can you ever become knowledgeable on these subjects if others outright refuse to answer your questions? Right?

WRONG!

Knowledge is not created by people asking questions and waiting for others to provide answers. Knowledge is gained by people who do things. Instead of asking somebody else to provide the answer for you, think what you can do to find the answer yourself. In fact, first spend a moment to come up with the most likely answer. And then validate that answer, proving yourself right or wrong. Try it, you'll be surprised how quickly you can try certain things. Heck... it may well be faster to try it then to ask again and again. And even if it's not faster, you will almost certainly gain a better understanding of the thing you are working with. In addition to getting an answer to your question, you'll also have a better understanding of the why around that answer. You'll have gained knowledge and understanding.

Yet many people seem to prefer asking a question over trying to find the answer themselves. Instead of building knowledge they are trying to get other people to give them the knowledge. And while I don't mind showing off my knowledge about a topic, mine is often built from doing things - not from asking others. So ask yourself: do you want to be a knowledge sink? Or do you want to be a knowledge source?

This situation is so common that an entire subculture has arissen. When somebody asks a very open question on Stack Overflow, someone almost always comments with: "what have you tried?". Matt Gemmell even put his original blog post to that effect on a separate domain: whathaveyoutried.com. Have a look around Stack Overflow and see what type of questions solicit the "what have you tried?" response. The phenomenon has spread quite far. Often I feel bad for the person asking the question, because they clearly have no clue what they've done wrong.

Handling asynchronicity in an API

Designing a good API is one of the more difficult tasks when it comes to software development. Unfortunately it is also one of the important tasks, since it is really hard to change an API after it's been made public. Well OK, maybe it is not hard for you to change the API, but it is hard on the users of your API: they have to update all their client programs if you decide to make changes.

Nowadays many APIs deal with asynchronous operations, especially when an API bridges the gap between a client-side web application and a server-side back-end. Whenever a web application needs some additional data from the server, it needs to initiate a (XMLHttpRequest) call to the server. And since such a call can take a significant amount of time it should (in almost all cases) be handled asynchronously.

Checking if the title is loaded

Here is how I recently saw this done in a JavaScript API:

    function displayTitle(object) {
      if (object.isLoaded()) {
        document.getElementById('title').innerText = object.getTitle();
      } else {
        function onLoaded(object) {
          object.removeEventHandler('load', onLoaded);
          document.getElementById('title').innerText = object.getTitle();
        }
        object.addEventHandler('load', onLoaded);
        object.load();
      }
    }

To display the title of the object, we first have to check if the data for the object has been loaded from the server. If so, we display the title straight away. If not, we load it and then display the title.

That is quite a lot of code, for what is a quite common operation. No wonder so many people dislike asynchronous operations!

Use a callback for the asynchronous operation

Let's see if we can simplify the code a bit.

For example, the event handler is only used once here. And although registered event handlers can be useful for things that happen all the time, clearly in many cases people will want to check if the object is loaded in a regular sequence of code - not respond to whenever the object is (re)loaded.

If we allow the onLoaded function to be passed into the load() call, things clean up substantially:

    function displayTitle(object) {
      if (object.isLoaded()) {
        document.getElementById('title').innerText = object.getTitle();
      } else {
        object.load(function onLoaded(object) {
          document.getElementById('title').innerText = object.getTitle();
        });
      }
    }

The nice thing about this change it that you can add it to the existing API after releasing it:

    MyObject.prototype.loadAndThen = function(callback) {
      function onLoaded(object) {
        object.removeEventHandler('load', onLoaded);
        callback(object);
      }
      this.addEventHandler('load', onLoaded);
      this.load();      
    };

This is mostly a copy of the code we removed between the first and second fragments above. But now instead of everyone having to write/copy this plumbing, you just have to write it once: in the prototype used for the object in question.

Note that I named the function loadAndThen, to avoid conflicting with the existing load function.

Assume asynchronicity

But when I started using the Firebase API a while ago, I noticed how natural their way of handling asynchronous operations feels. If we'd apply their API style to the above example, the displayTitle function would become:

    function displayTitle(object) {
      object.getTitle(function (title) {
        document.getElementById('title').innerText = title;
      });
    }

Since the title might have to be loaded from the server, they require you to always pass in a callback function. And they will simply call that function once the title is loaded.

Now I can see you thinking: "but what happens if the title is already loaded?" That is the beauty of it: if the title is already loaded, they simply invoke the callback straight away.

If we'd like to implement such an API on top of our example, we could implement getTitle like this:

    MyObject.prototype.getTitleAndThen = function(callback) {
      if (this.isLoaded()) {
        callback(this.getTitle());
      } else {
        function onLoaded(object) {
          object.removeEventHandler('load', onLoaded);
          callback(object.getTitle());
        }
        this.addEventHandler('load', onLoaded);
        this.load();      
    };

Like before I gave the function a suffixed name to prevent clashing with the existing getTitle function. But of course if you end up implementing this in your own API, you can just stuff such code in the regular getTitle function (which probably reads the title from a member field of this).

If you think this is a lot of code to add to your framework, look back at our first example. If you don't add the code to your framework, every user will end up adding something similar to their application.

Conclusion

By assuming that certain operations are (or at least can be) asynchronous, you can reduce this code:

    function displayTitle(object) {
      if (object.isLoaded()) {
        document.getElementById('title').innerText = object.getTitle();
      } else {
        function onLoaded(object) {
          object.removeEventHandler('load', onLoaded);
          document.getElementById('title').innerText = object.getTitle();
        }
        object.addEventHandler('load', onLoaded);
        object.load();
      }
    }

To this:

    function displayTitle(object) {
      object.getTitle(function (title) {
        document.getElementById('title').innerText = title;
      });
    }

The biggest disadvantage I see in the second example is that users of your API are more directly confronted with closures. Although I hang around on StackOverflow enough to realize that closures are a real problem for those new to JavaScript, I'm afraid it is for now a bridge that everyone will have to cross at their own pace.

What I use my iPad for - one year later

Last year on April 3rd Apple released the iPad. I stood in line to get the new device day one and one week later I wrote a post here about what I was using the iPad for. Today marks the iPad's one year anniversary. So it's time to see if my usage has changed over the past year and if my usage patterns hold up for others.

Games

When I pick up my iPad it is still very often to play a quick game on it. It really is the perfect device for playing games: the screen is large enough to show a decent play field and touch controls are natural for many of the casual games that I've grown to like over the years.

The number one game for me of the iPad's first year has been Plants vs. Zombies. You can play the Flash/PC version of this tower defender game for free on the vendor's web site, but I only every played the $9.99 iPad rendition. It has quick play, mini games and a fun campaign mode that I must've played through half a dozen times by now.



Although Plants vs. Zombies by far ate the most of my time in the past year, there are many other games that I play or played regularly. There's the inevitable Angry Birds, which is nice but gets boring and frustrating for me after a while. It shares that problem with the beautifully made indy game Steam Birds.


Angry Birds


Steam Birds

You'd almost think I don't like games that are difficult, but I regularly play both Rush Hour and Sherlock as proof that that's not true. Sherlock is a classic puzzle game that my wife and I have been playing since the good old DOS (EGA graphics) days. Seeing it revived on iOS is wonderful and I gladly paid the $2.99 admission fee.


Rush Hour


Sherlock

More recently I've been wasting too much time with My Kingdom for the Princess, which is a time/resource management game with a very cute look. Click the link to play it for free on your PC. And Trade Nations has also been keeping my attention. I'm not sure what it is with these building games, but keep playing them - even when I've clearly mastered their mechanics.


My Kingdom for the Princess


Trade Nations

The last game that deserves a mention is Tiny Wings, which has firmly confirmed my suspicion that iPad games must include birds and physics to be successful.

Tiny Wings

Reading

After playing games I probably spend most time on my iPad reading. Instapaper is still a favorite, as ability to transfer web pages to my iPad with one-click (while improving their readability at the same time) makes it a killer app for the iPad in my book. If only I would spend less time on games, so that my reading stack would get somewhat smaller.



While Instapaper is great for reading articles, I still don't like the iPad as an e-reader for books. In the past year I read three books in the sames series: two on my Sony Reader and one on my iPad. The reading experience on the iPad is nice, with cool animations at times. But I stick to my opinion that lengthy reading sessions are simply less strainfull on an e-ink screen than they are on the iPad's LCD screen.

That said, the iPad has grown into my favorite reader for all shorter length reading. In addition to Instapaper I now also regularly read my RSS and twitter feeds on the iPad. While many people like Flipboard, I couldn't really get used to it and (for the moment) stuck with two specialized clients: Reeder for RSS and TweetDeck for Twitter.


Flipboard


Reeder


TweetDeck

Video

I wasn't too much into watching video on my iPad at first, but that has changed over the year. The iPad is of course great for watching video while on the plane, as long as you remember to buy and download the videos before boarding. But I also now use my iPad for watching video while exercising on my indoor rowing machine. Before getting an iPad I used to listen to audio books, but the iPad has solidly taken the Shuffle's place here.

Video from iTunes of course work great, but comes at a price. For the past few months I've actually been watching content from iTunes/U, which has lots of great material for free. For the techies amongst you: download CS193P and learn iOS programming while you exercise. This does by the way require the use of wireless (bluetooth) headphones.

Aside form iTunes, I also subscribe to Netflix and Hulu+. Although both have great content, I've been having some problems keeping the wifi connection stable while exercising. I have no idea what could be causing this as the iPad is literally less than 15 feet from the wireless access point. But I also haven't bothered too much figuring it out: iTunes/U for the moment has enough content to keep me "entertained".

Creativity

An unexpected category of apps doing well on the iPad are the creative creation apps. While the iPad has proven more a consumer than a producer device, this seems untrue of creative applications. Think of music creation apps (my favorite subcategory), image editing apps and video editing apps. The large multi-touch screen of the iPad has proven a great "build your own instrument/control" option for some of the more creative uses.

Although I don't spend nearly as much time in these apps than I should, I have a few favorites that I regularly return to. Everyday Looper is one of those. It is extremely simple in concept and user interface: you record multiple audio-loops in rapid succession. Doing this allows you to build a song in relatively little time. While I wish the app came with a few more features (such as repeating a "background" loop or creating patterns of the loops you've recorded) it is powerful already enough to keep me coming back every once in a while.

Everyday Looper

I really wish I could add GarageBand to this category. But unfortunately I haven't yet been able to test it on my iPad. The download from the appstore keeps failing. Maybe this will solve itself when I finally take the time to update my iPad to iOS4.

If you're more visually oriented there are multitudes of drawing and photo editing tools on the iPad. Given the gorgeous multi-touch screen, that was bound to happen. The image creation app I am most happy to see on the iPad is ArtRage. For a while I used this program extensively on my laptop, using a Wacom trackpad for drawing. Even though I've never painted in the real-world, the controls were very intuitive and precise. That this is in a large part to thank to the Wacom trackpad and its stylus becomes very obvious when you start using the iPad version or ArtRage. Although the interface is very similar, some of the more precise control is definitely lost. That said, it is still very much fun to use a photo from your albums as a background and start painting on top of it using water paint, oil paint of even chalk. The auto-color picker makes it incredibly easy to produce reasonable pieces of "art". Fun!


ArtRage

Work

The last category of apps I use regularly is sort of a mish/mash, but I think they all have to do with using my iPad for work. Only in the past few months have I started noticing that I tend to open my laptop less often in the morning. I like reading most RSS feeds, tweets and emails before I head out to the office. I used to do this on my laptop, but since early this year notice that I do this more and more on my iPad. The iPad is the ultimate media consumption device in this sense, which fits great with my morning pattern: I read/scan a lot, but respond fairly little - leaving longer responses until I get to the office.

Of course being a software developer means that I also use my iPad for development. Not for writing code (although I would love that), but to test if our software works sufficiently on mobile safari. Somehow my searches for "software to program for the iPad from the iPad" haven't resulted in anything too useful yet.

But since I bought a Bluetooth keyboard an iTeleport Connect, I can access the MacMini at home while I'm at the office. Using the keyboard for text input and the touch screen as a (not too accurate) mouse. While the experience isn't perfect, it does allow you to get some things done without having access to the physical machine. I can't wait to see what will happen when VMware launches their iPad viewer app. The iPad is completely silent, using very little power - it may well be the ultimate thin client.




Two more work-related uses, those are the last... I promise.

At one point I was about to board for a transatlantic flight when I got an email with the ever-interesting combination of question marks and exclamation marks: "why isn't this done yet ?!?!?" I had completely forgotten about a report I promised to write days earlier. The long flight and the iPad proved to be job-savers here: the flight was long enough to get a decent version of the report drafted before touch down and the iPad is small enough to fit in front of me on the table in coach.

Lastly I sometimes use my iPad for presenting. Our company is a Windows shop, so everything get prepared in Powerpoint. But once the PPTX is done, I drag it into dropbox, open it on my iPad and use keypad to present it. Now if only the projectors we use were as silent as an iPad...

Summary

So in summary I don't think my iPad usage has changed too much over the year. It's still the "computer" that is closest by when I want to do something for a few moments: whether it's a quick game, looking up a video that we're talking about with friends or doing some catching up on articles and blogs on the couch. It's taken over quite a few tasks that I previously used laptops for and has come up with new tasks that I previously simply wouldn't do.

Color-coding your scrum board

At my company we've been using Scrum for a few years now. And even though I'm quite sure we're not living up to Schwaber's and Sutherland's standards, we seem to have found a way to make the process work for us across many projects.

Like many companies we started out with a simple physical scrum wall:



Later we started putting the burndowns on our intranet, so that everyone could see them. And we started using colored post-its for indicating different types of work.

In our case we use yellow for development tasks, pink for non-development tasks (i.e. testing and documentation) and orange for defects. There's no specific reason for using these colors. They just happened to be the post-it colors we had available when we started using colors. Since then my mind got used to them and I haven't yet heard a reason to switch. Although some of our tech writers are frowning at being "the guys who do the pink work".



As we've been growing our use of Scrum, we've also been using more and more tools. First was the online burndown charts. And then we started using a virtual scrum wall, so that we could share the same wall between distributed teams. It was a great boost for our distributed development, although most team members still sometimes long back for the days when they had a physical wall. Nothing beats the satisfaction you get from moving a physical post-it across 5 inches of whiteboard space.

We've been using Scrum for Team System for a while now to keep track of our stories and tasks. And I thought we were quite happy with it. Sure, we lost the ability to color code our task types. But the task board we used has nice colors too, although it uses them to code the columns. So "done" is green, etc.

But recently I noticed that it was difficult to quickly understand the status of a sprint from simply looking at their board:



So is the status of this project? It's hard to say without looking at the details of each task. It could be that everything is going fine, it could be that things are horribly wrong. There is no way to tell which one it is, unless you get closer to the board and read.

So over the weekend I re-encoded one of our boards with the colors we used back in our "physical days". Now look at the same board where we've used colored post-its:


Yellow = development tasks, pink = non-development tasks, orange = bugs

When we applied this color coding to our existing scrum board, I was shocked at the amount of insight it could add.

So I wrote a quick tool to generate these color-coded task boards for us. The process is purely automatic: read the data from team system, apply a few simple rules (e.g. anything with the word "bug", "defect" or "issue" in it, must be a defect) and output a HTML version of the data. But even with such a simple system we've been able to more easily get a feeling of where all projects stand by simply glancing at the board.

So what is your experience with scrum walls? Do you have any tricks you use to help visualize the data?

Block font

Many people seem to doodle while they're in meetings. Doodling is a nice way to distract yourself with something, while ensuring that you can still follow what is being presented. I guess that's why those meeting centers hand out those incredibly thin notebooks.

My doodles typically consist of writing down words that have to do with what is being presented. Now before you say "that is called: taking notes" - I take my notes in elaborate fonts.

One of the fonts I came up with this time is a 'block font'. And since the meeting was rather long, I decided to create all letters.



I should apologize to the speakers, because I wasn't paying too much attention near the end of their presentation. Coming up with all letters in a single style is hard work.

I'm quite happy with most of the letters, but there's some that I really can't get to look decent. The I and the J are especially painful. Is there somebody with real designer skills that can show me how to do those character properly in this style?

What I use my iPad for

It's been a week since Apple released their latest revolution: the iPad. By now every major site has reviewed it (most positive), but unsure what the device is meant for. I got my iPad on the launch date, so have had a week to play around with it and show it off.

In the past week the number one question from everyone has been: what do you use your iPad for? As with any new device type, the most common use-cases are not immediately clear. I don't think Apple ever thought the appstore would be the greatest attractor of new users to the iPhone. The iPad is no different: it's a completely new beast and it'll take some time for people to figure out what to do with it.

In the past week, I've used my iPad primarily for these three things:

• Games


• Surfing


• Email

In addition I've actually also spent quite some time showing the iPad off to various people. But that is of course a use-case that will be less relevant over time. Until that happens though, I'd advice every iPad owner to buy the apps in the iWorks suite. They show off the serious side of the iPad best for the moment.

Games

Not surprisingly the iPad makes a great device for games. For me it has been mostly casual games so far, but I might try out some more serious games (red alert, need for speed) soon.


My favorite games so far have been Harbor Master, Rush Hour and Labyrinth. All three seem to have been made exactly for this type of device, but with Rush Hour the playing pieces feel a bit too big. Maybe they're ahead of the pack and already made their game for the smaller iPad that is rumored to come next year.

Surfing

The iPad comes with Apple's latest Safari release, which is perfect for surfing the web. It doesn't allow tabbed browsing, which I think is a miss. But you can keep multiple pages open and switching between them is relatively elegant. When you shut down/restart Safari the pages take a bit of time to reload, which I think should not be needed on a device with 16GB or more of memory.


The iPad will not soon replace your laptop as your main device for surfing. Although it is totally usable, it is just not made for using at your desk. Maybe that changes when I get a docking station later this month, but for the moment the laptop wins the battle for my desk.

Where the iPad really shines is on the couch. I had some discussion with friend who'd say they use their laptop on the couch too. Maybe they do, but it's not the same thing. Whether I'm talking to visiting friends or are watching TV, the iPad is always within immediate reach. You can just leave it turned on all the time, it turns off the screen automatically and never gets hot nor does it ever make any noise. A laptop would simply not fit comfortably in the same seat as me or be waiting on the armrest of my chair just in case I need to look something up. Hmm... I think I've seen that actor before, let's look on IMDB quickly - no need to wait for a commercial break.

Email

My number three usage has been reading and responding to email. The on-screen keyboard is quite good, especially in landscape mode. Although as Apple claimed the keys are almost full-size, it does take some time to adapt to them. Without tactile feedback it is very easy to touch a few keys without noticing. So what I see most people do very quickly is arch their fingers a bit more to avoid those accidental key presses.


Reading and writing email works like a charm. Switching between multiple mailboxes takes a bit of tapping, but nothing too bad. The iPad really came to my rescue this week when my laptop started acting up. Instead of having to fall back to my iPhone or having to steal somebody else laptop, I could switch to the iPad and write reasonably lengthy responses.

So those are my top 3 use cases of the past week: gaming, surfing and mailing. There were also some things that I didn't use my iPad for, even though there is great software available and people had predicted those use-cases.

Not for reading

Apple tries to position the iPad as the ultimate eBook reader. I was already skeptical about this before I got my iPad, simply because I've grown to love my Sony Reader over the past half year. The one thing I love about the Sony is the eInk screen.


Although the iPad's screen is gorgeous, for readability it doesn't compare to eInk. Try reading intensely for more than a few minutes and you'll notice the difference. The iPad might look fresher and cleaner, but reading an eInk screen is simply less stressful for the eyes than reading on the iPad.

Another thing holding the iPad back as an eBook reader is it's size and weight. I often read my Sony in bed, lying on my back holding it above me. I challenge anyone to do that with the iPad for more than a few minutes. It's simply too heavy and too clunky.

That said: the iBook software on the iPad looks great. Apple was kind enough to include an illustrated book of Winnie the Pooh, which perfectly shows the type of material the iPad was made for: colorful books with large fonts and pictures. I can easily see how the iPad might be a kids favorite reading device, even though I will stick to my Sony Reader for lengthy reading sessions.

Where the iPad had proven useful is for reading articles. Whenever I want to read an article from a website, I've always had to convert it for reading on my Sony Reader. Although it's not a huge amount of work, I love using Instapaper for the iPad. With a single click on my laptop, I transfer any article from the web over to Instapaper on the iPad - where it is automatically reformatted into easy reading format. I really wish a similar program/feature existed for my Sony Reader though, because I do miss the eInk screen when reading on my iPad.

Not for video

I've also not been watching much video on my iPad. I think I should say "not yet" here, because there seems to be no reason not to use the iPad for watching youtube or video's bought from iTunes.

Since the iPad doesn't support flash, many video sites may not work. But hopefully this is just a temporary nuisance until all sites do what youtube did: re-encode their video's to work in H.264 or whatever the format is.

When I did watch video, it looked great on the screen. At time the wireless network at some places couldn't keep up with the video, which is an unfortunate consequence of the HD resolution that the iPad supports.

Who estimates the stories in Scrum?

A few years ago we did a project with an outsourcing company. We gave them the current source code of a product, we gave them the backlog for the new version and we asked them to start implementing that backlog top to bottom.

Since the external team was new to both the product and the Scrum process, I decided to also do some rough estimates myself. Given my experience with both the product and the process, those estimates could serve as a rough baseline.

The progress

The remote team worked on the project for 5 sprints. During that time we saw an interesting trend.

As the team finished each sprint, some of their work was accepted and other work wasn't. Work was sometimes rejected because of its quality, but often it was rejected because it simply didn't do everything that the product owner had expected. In those cases the team put another story on the backlog for the missing parts and provided a fresh estimate for the "new" work. They also re-estimated the existing stories based on the newly gained insight of the previous sprint.

So over time the team's backlog grew in size. That is not uncommon, but look at the burnup chart:


burnup 1: based on team estimates

Based on this burnup chart, the project is in serious trouble. The team seems to be doing great, delivering more work with every sprint. But even though more and more work is delivered every sprint, the team is not getting closer to the goal.

The fifth sprint here is really disastrous: the team stopped increasing delivering more work. Did they burn out? How are we ever going to get the project out the door?

For comparison let's look at the data based on my estimates - that the team never saw and didn't commit to:


burnup 2: based on estimates by an external stakeholder

On my end, for every new story the team added to the backlog I checked if I had considered that part in my original estimate. If so, I split the story points I had originally estimated over the two stories. If the new story was functionality I had not expected in my estimate, I would provide a fresh estimate - also increasing the backlog in my part. As you can see that happened only once, but the increase was substantial (about 10%).

In my chart too the team seems to be burning out a bit in sprint 5. But it doesn't seem half as bad as in the firsts burnup chart. They are still getting closer to the goal.

And in both charts the team seems to be about 20% done with the total amount of work.

Analysis

So what's the difference between the two charts and estimators. From my perspective there are two major differences: the stability of the progress and who made the estimates.

How stable is the progress

The charts below show the velocity per sprint as derived from the burndown charts above:


velocity 1: velocity from sprint to sprint in burndown 1

velocity 2: velocity from sprint to sprint in burndown 2

The burnups don't really have a lot of data. But if you look at the first velocity chart, you can see that sprints 1 to 4 show a somewhat exponential growth in velocity (1.3x, 1.4x, 1.8x).

The scope/goal line in the corresponding burnup chart (burnup 1) shows a constant growth, mostly because I don't have the exact data anymore.

So at some point the two lines in burnup 1 are going to intersect, but it is pretty difficult to determine where they'll intersect with the naked eye.

The second burnup doesn't have this growth in velocity and the scope increase is about 10% over 5 sprints.

It is a lot easier to see where this project is going to end. And isn't scrum all about transparency and easy to use charts and data?

Who provides the estimates?

The second question I posed above is who provides these estimates. With the whole hype about lean development I learned that one way to optimize output is to eliminate waste. Anything that isn't delivered to the customer is waste and should be eliminated.

Who needs these estimates? The customer? I don't think my customer cares about estimates. He cares about getting as much software as possible for his/her money. In fact, while the team was providing these estimates they could also have been building more software.

So is it the team that needs these estimates then? After all without those estimates, how do they know what they can commit to? Well... the team does need to know how big a story is before they can commit to it. But they only need to know that at the start of each sprint. And only for the stories that they think they might do in that sprint. So although the team needs to know the size of each story it commits to, it doesn't need to know the size of all stories at the start of the project. Nor do they need to re-estimate the stories (another form of waste).

So the only person that actually needs those estimates, is the guy drawing the charts. In this case that was me, an external stakeholder who is not a part of the team. In many cases it will be the scrum master, who needs those estimates to give his stakeholders some view of the progress towards the overall goal. In other cases it will be the product owner, since he is most interested in seeing his return on investment.

Conclusion

My suggestion: let the guy who needs them come up with the numbers. And if you don't feel comfortable, do a reasonable guess. And if you don't even feel comfortable guessing, set all stories to the same size. In the end it doesn't really matter too much and you'll allow the team to focus on what really matters: building working software.