RE: [epf-dev] Intro page + Plus comments for all content leads++

[Per Kroll <pkroll@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris,

I agree with what you write but would
suggest you change 
"Conduct a
review .... with relevant Stakeholders
to ensure agreement...."

to <change in bold>

"Conduct a review ... with relevant Stakeholders
and other team members to ensure agreement..."

This makes it clear that you should
incude developer, architect, tester as appropriate.

Cheers

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

"Chris Sibbald" <Chris.Sibbald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

09/20/2006 12:47 PM

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

To	"Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	External Chris Sibbald <csibbald@xxxxxxxx>, epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject	RE: [epf-dev] Intro page + Plus comments for all content leads++

Hello Per,
 
Concerning the additional roles
for the tasks in intent I agree that the Architect, Developer and Test
should be additional roles to ensure requriements are feasible and verifiable.
 I propose we add these three additional performers to the three tasks
in requirements.
 
The three requirements tasks contain
the step Achieve Concurence.  I think they fine as is, along with
the associate guidance Effective Requirements Reviews as these two elements
do discuss internal reviews to ensure that requirements are feasible and
verifiable.  If you think there should be an additional sentence added
to the step: Achieve Concurence I have no problem with that.  Let
me know what you think and I will create bugzilla entries and make the
changes.
 
Cheers,
Chris

---

From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Per Kroll
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 2:32 PM
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
Cc: 'Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List'; epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Intro page + Plus comments for all content leads++


Hi, 

attached you find my draft description of each subprocess and the foundational
collaboration layer. I am writing this disconnected, so cannot put it into
bugzilla right now. 
The text would probably benefit from a graph for each sub-process to capture
the essence of that sub-process. I have not yet reflected on what such
a graph may look like. 

As I wrote the text, I made a number of comments that I hope is a good
read for all content leads, as well as other people writing content. I
e.g. suggest changes to most of the tasks in Intent and Solutions Development
to better reflect collaborative development, with more roles involved in
the various tasks. I think the counter-argument is that if every role needs
to participate in every task, does that not only clutter the model? That
would be a valid concern, but as a minimum, we need to make sure that it
is crystal clear to the analyst that they should not only capture requirements,
but that they need to involve developers, architects and testers to validate
the requriements and ensure that they are understood. This could be done
through a simple change to the step "Achieve Concurrence". The
same type of thinking probably applies to most or at least many tasks in
the intent and solutions development sub-processes.

Comments? 


Cheers 

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

Bruce Macisaac/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

09/14/2006 09:01 PM

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

To	steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc	"'Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List'" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject	[epf-dev] Intro page

Hi Steve, 

As you recall, at Wednesday's status meeting I expressed the concern that
the intro graphic, while cool, introduces another set of things that look
a lot like the disciplines, which could be confusing.  To address
this concern, Per has agreed to draft up some pages for each of these areas.

After Sept 30, we can further explore my proposal to align these areas
with the disciplines. 
(For reference, here is what I had in mind - although from informal discussions,
it looks like it will take a while to gel): 
- rename "Intent" to be "Requirements", to match the
discipline 
- Solution would have sub-disciplines of Implementation, Test, AnD, and
later deployment. 
- Management would have CM and Project Management, and later Environment.
- Communication and Collaboration becomes a new discipline that describes
general concepts and responsibilities of all team members.
For now, the Any Role and "submit a change request" would be
in this discipline.  Longer term would be general review procedures,
guidance on scrums, searching for reusable assets and 
providing feedback, resolving conflict, etc.)

Hope that works for you. 

Cheers, 

Bruce MacIsaac
Manager - RUP/OpenUP Content
bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (408)863-8718
_______________________________________________
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