Scott and I just got off the phone about
this. Here’s what we recommend to address this:
- Have
a concall at 7 AM Pacific tomorrow. Go through the architecture &
development tasks and see if they need additional performers. If a task
does warrant it, determine which step(s) that task is involved in, and
assign someone to write the content.
- After
the call, everyone writes the content they’ve committed to and
submits it to CVS. At 10:00 pacific all changes should be in CVS and everyone
reviews each other’s materials. Note any glaring problems.
- Have
a quick concall at 10:30 Pacific where any showstoppers are communicated
(hopefully there will be none). After the call the original writers fix
the task steps as appropriate.
Scott can’t be on the call in the
morning so he’s going to look it over tonight and send his
recommendations.
If people think this scenario would work,
I’ll set up the meeting. If someone has an easier solution then let’s
do that!
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
From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of "Scott W. Ambler"
<swa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006
2:56 PM
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
