[news.eclipse.technology.epf] Subprocesses in the OpenUP/Basic Published

[Jim Ruehlin <jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

When you look at the page "Introduction to OpenUP/Basic", you see the 
attractive OpenUP logo with the 4 subprocesses (Management, Intent, 
Solution, Collaboration). We also have 4 concepts that describe these 
subprocesses. However there's nothing else in the published process that 
uses or references this concept. The subprocesses are important packages 
in the Composer plug-in, but currently they don't have any meaning at 
the level of the published process. In other words, they don't seem to 
provide value to practitioners.

A lot of us like this logo, but the question is, what do we do with it? 
If it provides value we should leverage the concept, if it doesn't we 
should probably eliminate it. What do people think?

Here are some possible options for dealing with the subprocess issue:

   * Remove the logo and concepts. Refer to the subprocesses only as
     packages in the plug-in that only process engineers will care about.
   * Keep the logo and remove the concepts. Treat the logo as a nice
     marketing artifact; a visual reminder that you're looking at OpenUP.
   * Keep the logo and concepts, and modify the tree browser to
     incorporate the notion of subprocesses. This might include
     organizing the disciplines and artifacts under subprocesses
     instead of a Disciplines node. The question is, does this provide
     any real value?
   * Don't expose disciplines like Requirements Management , PM,
     Implementation, etc. Package everything under subprocesses. This
     would simplify the look of OpenUP, but the disciplines are well
     known software development concepts that might be missed by
     practitioners.
   * ... do something else that leverages the notion of subprocesses to
     bring value to the practitioners.

Jim Ruehlin
jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx