How about if we change the deltas to # of
days relative to prior dependencies. We can include the expected dates based
on the these initial deliveries and deltas, but clarify that slips of earlier
milestones potentially mean slip of the dates (but not the deltas). As always,
we’ll try to accommodate any slips of our dependencies (as we would hope
others accommodate ours on the tail-end).
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006
[cross-project-issues-dev] Callisto RC1 experience
David, good idea - I made the change.
Tyler, I don't
think we ever came up with a policy for that. It does seem silly to blame a +2
project for slipping because a +1 or a +0 project slipped. I propose that you
guys just do something reasonable and then everybody agree that it is
reasonable. Let me know what it will be and I can update the Callisto web page
with new dates.
David M Williams wrote:
Well .. while we are all being so agreeable .. it might
help too if the schedule presentation emphasized the end-date, instead of the
range .. I think that adds to the confusion too.
Thessin, Tyler wrote:
What’s our agreed to policy regarding
Callisto dates and slips of early dependencies. E.g., Callisto RC1 states
the three categories of deliveries as absolute dates. But, how can the +1
and +2 categories deliver on the absolute date if the earlier dependency is not
available on time.