Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [epf-dev] Renaming "Change Management" practice to "Basic ChangeManagement"

Title: RE: [epf-dev] Renaming "Change Management" practice to "Basic ChangeManagement"

Another $0.03.

Maybe it could be part of the iterative development practice? Should it exist as proper EPF practice if it requires a qualifier?

Best Regards,
Onno


-----Original Message-----
From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Bruce Macisaac
Sent: Wed 13/08/2008 18:20
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Renaming "Change Management" practice to "Basic ChangeManagement"

Hi Ken,

I think the point is that without the qualifier, it makes it hard to name
alternative change management practices.
In other words, if we have 3 change management practice alternatives, and
one is called change management, it's hard from the name to know what kind
of change management is being described
by the practice.  Also, it may seem unfair for us to claim copyright to
"change management" - by adding some kind of qualifier, at least we are
only claiming our brand of change management.
Another suggestion from Per is "Informal Change Management".
Is that better than "Basic"?

Note that this practice, as it stands, just has one task, which is to
submit change requests, and otherwise changes are really being addressed
as part of
work item management done by the iterative development practice.  It's not
a traditional formal change management approach with a CCB and unique
states for change requests.

Bruce MacIsaac
Manager - RUP/OpenUP Content
bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (408)463-5140




"Ken Clyne" <ken.clyne@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/12/2008 01:11 PM
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] Renaming "Change Management" practice to "Basic Change
Management"






I don't know I think you got it right the first time.  Firstly, I don't
think its fair for any one group to claim copyright to the term Change
Management. Secondly the term "Basic" is almost pejorative and somehow
diminishes the importance of the practice (think about Basic Project
Management, Basic Architecture etc).  Thirdly, I'm not sure we need a
qualifier, one would think the context would be sufficient if we put
"Basic" before one practice what does that mean about the other practices.

My $0.03


On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Bruce Macisaac <bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Chris Sibbald and I would like to make this change to address concerns
raised by reviewers.
The basic concern is that they expected from the name that this would be a
formal change management practice, and it's not.

See bugzilla:







243928





I plan to make this change tomorrow, so if there are any concerns at all
with this, please let me know as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Bruce MacIsaac
Manager - RUP/OpenUP Content
bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (408)463-5140


_______________________________________________
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



This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.

Back to the top