Hi Per,
I agree with your concept, my only concern
is that the phrase “the entire team” can be ambiguous. Some might
think it means just the developers. Others would say it’s the developers,
testers, and managers, and others would take it to mean everyone including stakeholders.
In our collaborative world the entire team
should include all the roles. So maybe we’d need to phrase it as something
like “All OpenUP roles participate in this step…”
- Jim
____________________
Jim Ruehlin, IBM
Rational
RUP Content
Developer
Eclipse Process
Framework (EPF) Committer
email:
jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx
phone:
760.505.3232
fax:
949.369.0720
From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Per Kroll/Cupertino/IBM
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006
6:50 PM
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epf-dev] 156378: No
point listing all roles in steps when entire team involved in task
Hi,
regarding
bug: 156378
This
bug has 10+ related bugs, so it is relevant to all process authors.
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=156378
I
agree that you should reference Artifacts in relevant task steps.
I
also agree that you should reference Additional Performers when there are only
a few.
However,
I disagree that Additional performers shold be listed when ALL team members
participate in a step. Instead, it is preferred to say "the entire
team" or similar.
We
should still call out all roles as Additional Performers, since you otherwise
do not find the task when you look at the indivudal roles.
Do
others agree? Jim?
Cheers
Per
Kroll
STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework
Rational Software, IBM Corp
408-342-3815
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
