Hi all,
I’m a new contributor to EPF but I’d
like to throw in my view of the proposed Work Item List.
For those of you who don’t know me,
I was involved with the development of the previous RUP technology – RPW,
Organizer, RUP Builder. (and I totally love the new Composer stuff!) I now lead
the development of our ProjectKoach product – a process-empowered project
management solution. Hence I view EPF from a process enactment point of view.
I like the simplification WIL makes and I
can see its alignment with the Product Backlog of Scrum and the Release Plan of
XP.
My concerns are that the presented WIL draft
definition is “too much implementation” - it effectively presents a
development case with a particular tool and format in mind – and that it
makes it too simple by throwing
out the Iteration Plan. This can make it difficult to map this process to other
implementations in projects using other means than the envisioned Excel
spreadsheet format to support it.
Software projects have many types of
drivers of their work – which go by many names: requirements, issues,
defects, change requests, etc.
These represent stakeholder requests, i.e.
“what the system is
requested to do”. We devise plans to schedule their implementation, and
these plans represent the planning aspect of these drivers, or “who shall implement their support, and when”. (Scrum: Product Backlog and
Sprint Backlog, XP: Story Card and Release Plan)
So, at level M0 there are two separate
concerns and my argument is that we shall preserve this separation also at level
M1. Even in the simplest process.
I suggest that the Iteration Plan be kept
as a separate artifact alongside with WIL, and that WIL description be adjusted
accordingly.
I would be happy to elaborate more on
these thoughts, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents worth by providing this feedback
before the end of the week.
Thanks,
Bjorn
From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Ruehlin
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006
7:30 PM
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epf-dev] Work Item List
Hello,
There have been no comments on Bugzilla entry: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=137120,
which describes the work item list. There has been generally positive response
in the discipline meetings to the proposed definition of the WIL described in
the entry. I just proposed in the entry that we give it until the end of this
week to see if there are significant comments/objections, and if not we go
ahead and implement it in OpenUP/Basic as described. I wanted to give everyone
a heads-up as the WIL is a primary artifact that a lot of tasks depend on. If
the work you do will be affected by the WIL I encourage you to take a look at
the description in the Bugzilla entry.
Thanks,
Jim
____________________
Jim Ruehlin, IBM Rational
RUP Content Developer
Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Committer
email: jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: 760.505.3232
fax: 949.369.0720