RE: [epf-dev] 156378: No point listing all roles in steps when entire te

[Per Kroll <pkroll@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Your concerns is valid, but I would
rather be consistent about the stakeholders, testers, and so on are part
of the team.
I think we need to have a crisp philosophy,
and that is that the entire team include all roles. It needs to be clear
from introductory material and collaborative practices that the entire
team includes these roles, and not only developers. So, i would like to
rather make sure that we ensure that we send a consistent message through
our process that stajeholders etc, are key team members, not people you
may choose to contact now and then.....

Cheers

Per Kroll
STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework
Rational Software, IBM Corp
408-342-3815

Jim Ruehlin/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

09/12/2006 02:12 PM

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

To	epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	RE: [epf-dev] 156378: No point listing all roles in steps when entire        team involved in task

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
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev