| Re: [epf-dev] Mock Up of General Intentions and CollaborativePrinciples |
|
Steve, I'm getting on my soapbox so read this accordingly: IMHO,part of the eclipse epf program's problem is the goal of creating yet two more methods (processes) [greatest things since sliced bread] as opposed to a method component repository and associated tool set from which anyone could build a project-specific method so that they can perform the right process. I have long ago stopped believing in the appropriateness of a bunch of methodologists sitting around a preverbial virtual table and coming up with a standard "tailorable" method for everyone to use, when they haven't even talked to anyone on the project, don't know its needs, and don't know its characteristics. What hubris I had when I wrote my methodolgy book recommending my favorite method. And I don't think getting a bunch of methodologists and process engineers together to do the job as a committee yields any better result (the camel being a horse designed by committee after all does have some truth to it). Thus, I have little or no faith in OpenUP and OpenAgile (or what ever we decide to call it). What I do have faith in is the epf and associated tool set, that if properly developed would allow anyone to EASILY and QUICKLY produce and maintain a project-specific method that the project users will support because it meets their actual needs, not some generic set of needs made up by someone who has never even talked to them about their project. Thus, until eclipse epf addresses this challenge, then I fear that the work on OpenUP and OpenAgile will be of little true value, merely adding one more pair of methods to the pile. We don't need more project independent methods, but more project-specific methods. In other words, I want patient-based gene therapy and I think the eclipse epf and tools could be a way to achieve that goal in a method-independent manner. At best, OpenUP and OpenAgile are useful to help develop and test the eclipse toolset. At worst, they will merely add a few more standard methodologies when we already have too many of them. What we need is standard class libraries. In other words, we don't need more generic Java programs, but rather a great Java class library and a great development environment that makes it easier for everyone to develop the Java programs they really need, not the standard ones we think they need. Stepping down now. ;-) Don steve wrote: Hi Don: I absolutely agree we really need to define what "complete" means (and minimal for that matter) because I could make the argument BUP (now OpenUP) is becoming "bloated", not that I would of course ;-) We are in the rather uncomfortable position of being squeezed from both ends. The agilists at the low end who may argue that we are creating yet another coercive heavy weight process (I disagree, but that argument can be made) and the heavy weight process dudes on the high end (e.g. the true RUP aficionados). This means we to need to be careful in the crafting of our out reach message and our explanation of minimal and complete. Best regards, Steve -----Original Message----- From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Donald Firesmith Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 5:16 AM To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Mock Up of General Intentions and CollaborativePrinciples Steve, I read you document and one thing clearly jumped out at me. BUP is anything BUT complete. It seems to be the least one can get away with. There are a huge number of useful method components that one could add, but which were chosen not to add. Because "complete" is being used (if correctly at all) in a very non-standard way, it is critical to clearly define what is meant by the word. Better yet, you should avoid the word complete completely. ;-) Don Firesmith P.S. For an example of complete and much that is missing in BUP, see the www.opfro.org repository. steve wrote:Hello Everyone: I'm having a bit of a tough time working my way up the CVS/Eclipse learning curve (at this moment the designer of the Eclipse/CVS feature may be feeling the itch of my projected frustration..:-( ) and my lap top is getting ready for the big desk in the sky...So with our Tuesday deadline looming I did not want to miss getting a few of my ideas into discussion for Thursday. I have attached a word document that can serve as a mock-up of a proposed set of general concepts for BUP, collaboration, iteration, requirements management, and architecture. These concepts are broken down into philosophical principles (why is this concept important and what it's objectives are) and specific actionable practices (how do you implement these castle in the sky philosophies). The practices should eventually be linked to specific BUP tasks, roles and artifacts. Much of what these general principles are about is providing the context and intention behind specific tasks, roles, and artifacts. For collaboration I have drawn for John Boyd's principles for organizational success (trust, vision, intent, and skill). I have then tried to propose seven specific collaborative practices that implement and give rise to these principles. My intention is these general principles can be added to BUP as a separate plug-in (General Principles plug-in) perhaps. That all said, these principles, and especially the collaborative principles, will be seen as a "bag on the side" of BUP if they are not integrated into specific BUP tasks, roles, and work products. This will definitely give rise to some controversy. For example, in the collaborative practices, there is a practice named "*Manage By Intent*" whose ultimate actionable manifestation is coarse grain task assignment (e.g. 2 to 3 days in scope). This will have a significant affect on Kirti and the project management discipline. But more than that: is coarse grain task assignment something we all agree with? Personally, I think fine grain task assignment is at best silly, but then many people may think my ideas are silly. Another practice is "*Buddy Up*" more than one person shall have responsibility for a task. One person may of course have "primary responsibility" that is they are the task owner, but others are also made responsible for the performance of the task (e.g. review). This practice can manifest itself as pair programming, adjacent programming, or programmer/reviewer pairs (or even triples) but it changes the way work is assigned ( or signed up to ) by team members. In short there is a lot of new territory to cover here on the collaborative side and I am going to need all the assistance and willing volunteers that are willing to collaborate on this. Personally, I think this is going to be the most exciting part of BUP - but then I may be biased J I will open several Bugzilla issues for this. Chat with you all later after I figure this *&#%%@*I!U@++#@(@&&!))) piece of fine software. Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev_______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev _______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev |