Re: [epf-dev] Inconsistency: Additional Performers

[Mark.Dickson@xxxxxxxxx]

I agree in principle. For architecture, just saying the whole team doesn't seem clear enough, as we need to explain the contribution each role makes in the text for each Task.

Is it possible that some of the roles are passive participants rather than active contributors to a Task? If so, they should probably not be listed as additional performers.
Do you really mean the whole team?

Cheers
Mark
Mark Dickson
SE&E Practice
Xansa
0780 1917480
*** sent from my blackberry ***


----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott W. Ambler" [swa@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 28/09/2006 22:56
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Inconsistency: Additional Performers


Agreed.  We need to update these tasks ASAP.

Should we post bugs for each individual task and then a parent bug?

- Scott

On Thu, September 28, 2006 5:35 pm, Per Kroll said:
> Hi,
>
> we have a pretty significant difference in usage of Additional
> Performance.
>
> For the Intent and PM tasks , we have many additional performers to
> articulate the collaborative nature, which is enabled by having all roles
> in teh collaboration layer
> For the Solutions tasks, we have normally no additional performers. I am
> fine with that for some tasks like "Run tests", where you do not need to
> collaborate with tons of people, but I do not like that the architect is
> more or less doing all architecture work without collaborating with
> everybody in the team, or the developer do design without working with
> analyst and tester (architect is already there). I think Design shold be a
> collaborative task....
>
> What do you others think? I am afraid that current implementation will
> come across as more traditional than agile....
>
> I think this can be addressed by addressing the 3 arch tasks, + design
> task..

Practice Leader Agile Development, IBM Rational
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/rational/bios/ambler.html

Refactoring Databases (
http://www.ambysoft.com/books/refactoringDatabases.html ) is now
available.

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

Whilst this email has been checked for all known viruses, recipients should undertake their own virus checking as Xansa will not accept any liability whatsoever.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and protected by client privilege.  It is solely for the use of the intended recipient.
Please delete it and notify the sender if you have received it in
error. Unauthorised use is prohibited.

Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not
necessarily the organisation.
     Xansa, Registered Office: 420 Thames Valley Park Drive,
     Thames Valley Park, Reading, RG6 1PU, UK.
     Registered in England No.1000954.
     t  +44 (0)8702 416181
     w  www.xansa.com