Scott and I just got
off the phone about this. Heres 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 theyve committed to and submits it to CVS. At 10:00 pacific all
changes should be in CVS and everyone reviews each others 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 cant be on the
call in the morning so hes going to look it over tonight and send his
recommendations.
If people think this
scenario would work, Ill set up the meeting. If someone has an easier
solution then lets 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