Home » Archived » Woolsey » A process-centric technology for Due Diligence Process
| A process-centric technology for Due Diligence Process [message #516673] |
Wed, 24 February 2010 17:56  |
|
Hi all,
While making some exmaples for our product, I got the idea to target the well-known Eclipse Due Diligence as a target process to model and execute. With such a process-centric (or BPM-centric if you prefer) approach, I could create an application that manages the IP process in almost a day.
Then I was thinking that such an approach could be something interesting for the Eclipse foundation and committers, and I remembered the Woolsey proposal, which is aimed at enhancing the IP Log toolset.
What do you think of the idea of using a process-centric technology ?
(Please note that I don't ask it in order to convince you to use such a solution, nor to promote our product and company. This is just an idea, and I'd be glad to know your opinion on it)
Regards,
--
Mickael Istria - BonitaSoft S.A.
http://www.bonitasoft.com/products/downloads.php
|
|
| |
| Re: A process-centric technology for Due Diligence Process [message #517547 is a reply to message #517273] |
Mon, 01 March 2010 09:10  |
|
Hello Wayne,
Thanks for your answer.
I'll start with the easier question:
> Does your product use Eclipse technology?
>
Yes, it does. The modeling part uses GMF, EMF validation & databinding, JDT and other projects, and the default pruction/test environment leverages Jetty.
We will submit in next days a case study poster for EclipseCon, which will describe how our product leverage Eclipse projects. Here is its description on MarketPlace: http://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/bonita-open-solution
By the way, this is an open-source (GPL) product which only requires a few minutes to try and evaluate once downloaded, so that you can get it from http://www.bonitasoft.com/products/downloads.php and give it a quick try if you're interested.
Next, the more difficult one:
> I think that we need to pull representation from the IP Team into the
> discussion since they're the ones that are impacted the most by this.
> I'd be happy to deliver a proposal to them. Can you put a few words
> together describing your proposal with more detail?
> You can send it to me directly (wayne@)
The sample I wrote from Due Diligence poster is available here: http://www.bonitasoft.org/exchange/extension_view.php?eid=10 , I think you should take a look to it and simulate some execution to better understand the following.
For sure opinion of the IP team is very important, but they are not the only ones that could benefit from a process-centric application to manage contributions. The process that I defined takes into account all actors in the IP process, and here are the benefit I see for each participant (the concept of participant/actor is native and easy to manage in a BPM solution):
* The contributor or committer would have an entry point where he would only have to answer a few questions in a web form, and immediately know what he has to do to contribute, or why he cannot contribute. The process could tell him to check in, or to open a bug, or a CQ. I remember that IP process was something I was not sure to have understood while I was an active committer and release engineer on JWT. It required a lot of reading, and several discussions with project lead and other committers before I knew how to get started.
* PMC and EMO would have access to the list of all open contribution request, with all necessary informations set in order to help them to make their choice.
The benefits would be:
* Contributor would have a simple application to query to get started.
* PMC and EMO would have an easier access to contribution requests.
* Generation of IP log could be fully automated.
* Process-centric technology generally facilitates reporting, datamining & co
In a first time, I think that this could only be used to help contributors, keeping Bugzilla and IPZilla to follow contributions. However I think that with time, it could be a substitute to them. Indeed some workflow business logic was added to IPZilla, to note PMC +1, contributor agreement & so on, but I imagine this is not so agile, and that if the IP process comes to change, there will be a lot of change to do on subsequent tools, whereas a BPM solution would allow these changes naturally.
Asking for a contribution request would be available publicly (same conditions as Bugzilla), access for PMC and EMO to contributions request requiring their approval would be available from portal.
I don't know whether it is enough to be considered as a proposal, but I hope you and IP team understand this idea more concretely. I would be glad to give answers to any question.
I think this is a topic worth discussing at EclipseCon. Is there way to plan a meeting involving also IP team at Santa Clara?
Regards,
--
Mickael Istria - BonitaSoft S.A.
http://www.bonitasoft.com/products/downloads.php
|
|
| |
| Re: A process-centric technology for Due Diligence Process [message #570121 is a reply to message #517273] |
Mon, 01 March 2010 09:10 |
|
Hello Wayne,
Thanks for your answer.
I'll start with the easier question:
> Does your product use Eclipse technology?
>
Yes, it does. The modeling part uses GMF, EMF validation & databinding, JDT and other projects, and the default pruction/test environment leverages Jetty.
We will submit in next days a case study poster for EclipseCon, which will describe how our product leverage Eclipse projects. Here is its description on MarketPlace: http://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/bonita-open-solution
By the way, this is an open-source (GPL) product which only requires a few minutes to try and evaluate once downloaded, so that you can get it from http://www.bonitasoft.com/products/downloads.php and give it a quick try if you're interested.
Next, the more difficult one:
> I think that we need to pull representation from the IP Team into the
> discussion since they're the ones that are impacted the most by this.
> I'd be happy to deliver a proposal to them. Can you put a few words
> together describing your proposal with more detail?
> You can send it to me directly (wayne@)
The sample I wrote from Due Diligence poster is available here: http://www.bonitasoft.org/exchange/extension_view.php?eid=10 , I think you should take a look to it and simulate some execution to better understand the following.
For sure opinion of the IP team is very important, but they are not the only ones that could benefit from a process-centric application to manage contributions. The process that I defined takes into account all actors in the IP process, and here are the benefit I see for each participant (the concept of participant/actor is native and easy to manage in a BPM solution):
* The contributor or committer would have an entry point where he would only have to answer a few questions in a web form, and immediately know what he has to do to contribute, or why he cannot contribute. The process could tell him to check in, or to open a bug, or a CQ. I remember that IP process was something I was not sure to have understood while I was an active committer and release engineer on JWT. It required a lot of reading, and several discussions with project lead and other committers before I knew how to get started.
* PMC and EMO would have access to the list of all open contribution request, with all necessary informations set in order to help them to make their choice.
The benefits would be:
* Contributor would have a simple application to query to get started.
* PMC and EMO would have an easier access to contribution requests.
* Generation of IP log could be fully automated.
* Process-centric technology generally facilitates reporting, datamining & co
In a first time, I think that this could only be used to help contributors, keeping Bugzilla and IPZilla to follow contributions. However I think that with time, it could be a substitute to them. Indeed some workflow business logic was added to IPZilla, to note PMC +1, contributor agreement & so on, but I imagine this is not so agile, and that if the IP process comes to change, there will be a lot of change to do on subsequent tools, whereas a BPM solution would allow these changes naturally.
Asking for a contribution request would be available publicly (same conditions as Bugzilla), access for PMC and EMO to contributions request requiring their approval would be available from portal.
I don't know whether it is enough to be considered as a proposal, but I hope you and IP team understand this idea more concretely. I would be glad to give answers to any question.
I think this is a topic worth discussing at EclipseCon. Is there way to plan a meeting involving also IP team at Santa Clara?
Regards,
--
Mickael Istria - BonitaSoft S.A.
http://www.bonitasoft.com/products/downloads.php
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Apr 24 22:40:20 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.54433 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
