[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[epf-dev] Some proposed agenda items for February F2F
- From: Jim Ruehlin <jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:36:19 -0800
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Importance: Normal
I don't know if there's an agenda yet for the February EPF F2F, so here
are a few topic recommendations:
* Redefining the architectural approach in OpenUP
(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=165258). We've been
having some small-group discussions about this and it would be useful to
report on progress so far. There are still issues to be resolved so this
may be a good opportunity for a breakout.
* Redefining the relationship between design and implementation
(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=168725). Brian and I have
had a couple of informal discussions but there's still a lot to do in
defining this. It may be useful to discuss the intent of this issue in
the main meeting, and have a breakout to make further progress. It may
also be useful to have a joint breakout with the architecture and
design/implementation groups to discuss interlocked issues.
* Simplify the explanation and description of use cases
(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=168275). The problem is
that use cases require a learning curve that many developers,
particularly in small teams, are not willing to dedicate themselves to.
User stories try to address this issue, but they can be ambiguous, and
they can define solutions rather than requirements. Can we come up with
a simpler way of doing use cases, and what would be the cost of doing
so? Should we move to user stories instead, or leave things as is?
Jim Ruehlin, IBM Rational
RUP Content Developer
Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Committer www.eclipse.org/epf