Re: [epf-dev] RE: epf-dev Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10

[Per Kroll <pkroll@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi A,

this woudl eb good things to happen.
Can you, or anybody else listening, helkp making sure that any of that
is happening?

I have myself had discussions with some
of the top people at DoD wrt making EPF the tool of choice for capturing
DoD process guidance... I think these type of discussions are vital for
EPF, it is a very powerful tool set that can and should be used by a variety
of organization and standards as the ones you mention...

Chris Armstrong has e.g. worked on getting
the Open Group to adopt EPF...

But it takes time so we are looking
for people that want to help driving adoption.

Cheers

Per Kroll
STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework
Rational Software, IBM Corp
(M) 408-219-2963

"Asterion Daedalus" <piercingdragoneyes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

07/05/2007 10:15 PM

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

To	epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	[epf-dev] RE: epf-dev Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10

I am thinking that the next issue is setting up a
method/process plugin zoo 
and inviting participation from camps as far afield as 12207, DO178B yadda
process camps, down to URN and other method camps.

Someone should coax the SWEBOK to re-tool.

Set up EPF as THE tool for IP exchange in software engineering and lowly
software development.


Cheers,
A


>From: epf-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Reply-To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: epf-dev Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
>Date: Thu,  5 Jul 2007 12:00:19 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Send epf-dev mailing list submissions to
>                
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>                
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>                
epf-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>                
epf-dev-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of epf-dev digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?
>       (Jaana Nyfjord)
>    2. RE: General: Questions on Introduction to OpenUP node
>       intreebrowser (Ben Williams)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:23:24 +0200 (CEST)
>From: "Jaana Nyfjord" <jaana@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some
>                
unpublished?
>To: "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List"
>                
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List"
>                
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,          
       epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Message-ID: <42603.24.80.155.80.1183566204.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>I also agree with adding this extra capability pattern. It makes certainly
>makes sense, and I believe it will only improve the position of OpenUP.
>
>My only concern is that we should be very clear and consistent with
the
>message about what is considered "default", and what are
variations in
>order to avoid any misunderstanding.
>
>Cheers
>Jaana N
>
>
>
>  I agree that would have value. We could label them as sample
variations 
>of
> > OpenUP we have seen an interest in.
> >
> > We have one default view of what type of development we want
to promote,
> > but we realize that many would like to put their own twise. So,
we 
>provide
> > some examples of such variations...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Per Kroll
> > STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
> > Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework
> > Rational Software, IBM Corp
> > (M) 408-219-2963
> >
> >
> >
> > Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
> > Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 06/29/2007 11:37 AM
> > Please respond to
> > Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > To
> > Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > Re: [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that having a few extra capability patterns that show
a couple
> > of different ways of using OpenUP is fine. What we don't want
to have is
> > 100 more patterns to create 200 different variations :-)
> > We want to keep OpenUP minimal, and it is fine if you can slightly
vary
> > it, without major customization, as it comes out-of-the-box.
> > We can provide 1 or 2 canned configurations that allow the process
to be
> > easily published with those variations you mentioned below. Ideally,
no
> > matter what configuration you publish, the published process
is called
> > OpenUP.
> >
> > Does it make sense? Are we aiming that for this release or next?
> >
> > Ricardo Balduino
> > IBM Rational Software (www.ibm.com/rational)
> > Eclipse Process Framework (www.eclipse.org/epf)
> >
> >
> >
> > "Brian Lyons" <blyons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 06/29/2007 06:14 AM
> >
> > Please respond to
> > Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > To
> > "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List"
><epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > hiho,
> >
> > We want OpenUP to be an enactable process, but also it should
be a good
> > example of usage of the Eclipse Process Framework.
> >
> > We have had some discussion about whether or not there is development
in
> > Inception.  The discussion has led us to not include development
as the
> > ?default? (i.e. the only supplied Inception iteration template)
while
> > having some verbiage around possibly including additional activities
for
> > development.
> >
> > The original 0.9 release didn?t enforce Test-driven development.
 In
> > discussions we noted that we wanted to push TDD because it is
a very
> > valuable technique.  The current Develop Solution activity
is strictly
> > TDD. But TDD is something that some organizations are not applying.
> >
> > What do people think about including some additional capability
patterns
> > in the OpenUP repository that would not be in the default published
>OpenUP
> > process?  This gives us a stronger message of ?This is the
default, but 
>it
> > is considered ?valid? to?? for some of these expected variations.
 And
> > this might make the repository a stronger example of appropriate
usages 
>of
> > EPF (the repository has information and some amount of that is
assembled
> > into a published process).
> >
> >                  
                ------------ b
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:23:31 +0200
>From: "Ben Williams" <Ben.Williams@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: [epf-dev] General: Questions on Introduction to OpenUP
>                
node                
intreebrowser
>To: "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List"
>                
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Message-ID:
>                
<0B5F4532EB115E46920BDC5FE7938FFA076B3704@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>My comments embedded below,
>
>
>
>Ben
>
>
>
>From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Per Kroll
>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:26 AM
>To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [epf-dev] General: Questions on Introduction to OpenUP node
>intreebrowser
>
>
>
>
>Hi,
>
>I have a few questions regarding the node "Introduction to OpenUP"
>- Should we merge "Introduction to OpenUP" and "OpenUP
in a Nutshell"?
><I think yes>
>
>[BW] I vote yes
>
>
>- Will the overview graph be at "Introduction to OpenUP"?
<I think yes,
>but this is becoming a length page, is that wise for an intro page?>
>
>[BW] As per Ricardos comments, yes I think it needs to be, and should
be
>displayed at the top of the page
>
>
>- Do we still need "OpenUP Fundamental Concepts"? I have
already
>referenced the 4 phases, risk, and iteration from Governance lifecycle
>and Iteration lifecycle respectively. I also referenced Software
>Architecture from Micro iteration, and I could reference Use Case,
from
>Micro Increment, but I do not think there is a great logical connection
><I think no, we do not need "OpenUP Fundamental Concepts".
>
>
>[BW] What is the rationale for getting rid of this?
>
>
>
>Cheers
>
>Per Kroll
>STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
>Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework
>Rational Software, IBM Corp
>(M) 408-219-2963
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Telelogic Lifecycle Solutions:
>Helping You Define, Design & Deliver Advanced Systems & Software
>Learn More at www.telelogic.com
>
>
>Ben Williams
>Director of Product Management, Lifecycle Solutions
>Telelogic UK Ltd
>Northbrook House, Oxford Science Park,
>Oxford
>OX4 4GA, United Kingdom
>Phone: +44 020 7193 7067
>Fax: +44 (1865) 784 286
>Mobile phone: +44 (7710) 637 067
>
>
>Ben.Williams@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://www.telelogic.com
>
>Telelogic - Requirements-Driven Innovation!
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment
or 
>enclosure, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
>addressed and may contain confidential material. Any unauthorized use,
>review, retransmissions, dissemination, copying or other use of this
>information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
is 
>prohibited.
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: 
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev/attachments/20070704/4a503f01/attachment.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>epf-dev mailing list
>epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
>
>
>End of epf-dev Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
>***************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Advertisement: New jobsjobsjobs.com.au. Find thousands of jobs online now!
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL="">
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev