RE: [epf-dev] Work Item List

[Bruce Macisaac <bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Bjorn,

Good to hear from you!
It would good if you could elaborate
on your ideas, what would be in the iteration plan vs. the WIL.

Bruce MacIsaac

"Bjorn Gustafsson" <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/27/2006 09:17 AM

Please respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"'Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List'" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [epf-dev] Work Item List

Hi all, 
I’m a new contributor to EPF
but I’d like to throw in my view of the proposed Work Item List. 
For those of you who don’t
know me, I was involved with the development of the previous RUP technology
– RPW, Organizer, RUP Builder. (and I totally love the new Composer stuff!)
I now lead the development of our ProjectKoach product – a process-empowered
project management solution. Hence I view EPF from a process enactment
point of view.
 
I like the simplification WIL
makes and I can see its alignment with the Product Backlog of Scrum and
the Release Plan of XP.
My concerns are that the presented
WIL draft definition is “too much implementation” - it effectively presents
a development case with a particular tool and format in mind – and that
it makes it too simple by throwing out the Iteration Plan. This
can make it difficult to map this process to other implementations in projects
using other means than the envisioned Excel spreadsheet format to support
it.
 
Software projects have many
types of drivers of their work – which go by many names: requirements,
issues, defects, change requests, etc. 
These represent stakeholder
requests, i.e. “what the system is requested to do”. We devise
plans to schedule their implementation, and these plans represent the planning
aspect of these drivers, or “who shall implement their support,
and when”. (Scrum: Product Backlog and Sprint Backlog, XP: Story
Card and Release Plan)
So, at level M0 there are two
separate concerns and my argument is that we shall preserve this separation
also at level M1. Even in the simplest process.
 
I suggest that the Iteration
Plan be kept as a separate artifact alongside with WIL, and that WIL description
be adjusted accordingly.
 
I would be happy to elaborate
more on these thoughts, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents worth by providing
this feedback before the end of the week.
 
Thanks,
Bjorn
 
 
 
 
Bjorn Gustafsson
GOOD Software Inc
bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.goodsoftware.ca
www.projectkoach.com
 
tel:    +1-604-948-2006
cell:   +1-604-644-9051
fax:   +1-604-677-5948

---

From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Ruehlin
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:30 PM
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epf-dev] Work Item List
 
Hello,
 
There have been no comments on Bugzilla entry:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=137120,
which describes the work item list. There has been generally positive response
in the discipline meetings to the proposed definition of the WIL described
in the entry. I just proposed in the entry that we give it until the end
of this week to see if there are significant comments/objections, and if
not we go ahead and implement it in OpenUP/Basic as described. I wanted
to give everyone a heads-up as the WIL is a primary artifact that a lot
of tasks depend on. If the work you do will be affected by the WIL I encourage
you to take a look at the description in the Bugzilla entry.
 
Thanks,
Jim
 
____________________
Jim Ruehlin, IBM Rational
RUP Content Developer
Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Committer
email:   jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx
phone:  760.505.3232
fax:      949.369.0720
 _______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev