| [epf-dev] Looking for SPEM2 supporters |
|
Peter, I am not sure where the assumption that Osellus would be negatively
impacted by a successful EPF project has come from. Perhaps we have said
something that was misleading. I can use this opportunity to clarify our
intent and plans. Osellus is a methodology agnostic company and we are looking forward to
offering the capability that would allow the OpenUP content to be made
available to our customers. We sincerely appreciate what IBM and the rest of
the EPF team have done in brining focus and attention to this important area.
Osellus will be one of the resulting beneficiaries. We have decided to propose an alternative SPEM 2.0 submission in
partnership with Fujitsu, Microsoft, and Sun. We are doing this to deal with a
number of concerns we had expressed but for whatever reason were not being
addressed. We were concerned that the IBM proposal was geared primarily
towards RUP, its approach of base content variability and application in
process workflows was inadequate and fails in many scenarios, was not forward
compatible with SPEM 1.1, could not be enacted, and was unnecessarily complex.
The alternative SPEM 2.0 proposal will address these issues. It is not
an anti-IBM proposal and we plan to build on some of the excellent work IBM has
done in this area. At any time, we welcome the opportunity to use the OpenUP
content in our proposal submission. We also plan to validate the concepts in
our proposal with Macroscope content from Fujitsu, Microsoft Patterns and Best
practices and MSF, and a number of SPEM 1.1 processes from Sun and other
organizations that have modeled their processes in SPEM 1.1. As you know, we tried very hard to incorporate meaningful changes into
the IBM proposal. At first we were told that we are slowing down the process
and not presenting any concrete and meaningful changes. Then we were depicted
as an organization that was stuck in SPEM 1.1 and does not want any change to
the specification. When we proposed a number of concrete changes to the
current proposal, IBM asked why we don’t pursue our own proposal. By
pursuing a separate proposal, we are simply trying to present a solution in an
atmosphere that is free of arbitrary constraints. At the outset of the EPF project, we suggested that EPF uses the ratified
SPEM 1.1 specification so we would have the time and flexibility to make SPEM
2.0 into something that addresses the industry needs as outlined in the SPEM 2.0
RFP. This is the link for the newsgroup discussion on this topic: http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=1944&group=eclipse.technology#1944
. Once the specification is ratified, the next version of EPF can be based on
it. Our suggestion went unheeded. In closing, I would like to reiterate that Osellus as an IBM partner is
an EPF supporter and is keenly interested in seeing the OpenUP open source
content on whatever emerges to be SPEM 2.0. We are confident that IBM would
let the process evolve naturally, irrespective of what products and content it
may have already developed. Thanks, Kamal Peter Haumer wrote:
|