Given the tight schedule to implement
this, please do not forget to revisit the capability patterns in order
to update the descriptors accordingly.
Changes to the descriptors using 'synchronization
with method' should be done cautiously, as each pattern has been
tweaked with selection of steps, given the phase when they are performed.
Whatever the solution on the method
side is, I'd like to offer my time to update the process side with the
assistance of one of the authors.
Cheers,
Ricardo Balduino
Senior Software Engineer
IBM - RUP Team | EPF Committer
www.ibm.com/rational
www.eclipse.org/epf
Jim Ruehlin/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/28/2006 03:23 PM
Please respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Scott and I just got off the
phone about this. Here’s what we recommend to address this:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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..