RE: [epf-dev] Inconsistency: Additional Performers

[Peter Haumer <phaumer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

For those I have deselected the "is
synchronized" flag.  Hence, you should update these manually.

Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.

______________________________________________________________

PETER HAUMER, Dr. rer. nat.
Rational Method Composer | Eclipse Process Framework
Rational Software | IBM Software Group
Tel.: +1 408 863-8716
______________________________________________________________

Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

09/28/2006 17:04

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

To	epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	RE: [epf-dev] Inconsistency: Additional Performers

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>

To	epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	RE: [epf-dev] Inconsistency: Additional Performers

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.. 

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
_______________________________________________
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