Re: [epf-dev] Intro page + Plus comments for all content leads++

[Per Kroll <pkroll@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

attached you find my draft description
of each subprocess and the foundational collaboration layer. I am writing
this disconnected, so cannot put it into bugzilla right now.
The text would probably benefit from
a graph for each sub-process to capture the essence of that sub-process.
I have not yet reflected on what such a graph may look like.

As I wrote the text, I made a number
of comments that I hope is a good read for all content leads, as well as
other people writing content. I e.g. suggest changes to most of the tasks
in Intent and Solutions Development to better reflect collaborative development,
with more roles involved in the various tasks. I think the counter-argument
is that if every role needs to participate in every task, does that not
only clutter the model? That would be a valid concern, but as a minimum,
we need to make sure that it is crystal clear to the analyst that they
should not only capture requirements, but that they need to involve developers,
architects and testers to validate the requriements and ensure that they
are understood. This could be done through a simple change to the step
"Achieve Concurrence". The same type of thinking probably applies
to most or at least many tasks in the intent and solutions development
sub-processes.

Comments?


Cheers

Per Kroll
STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework
Rational Software, IBM Corp
408-342-3815

Bruce Macisaac/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

09/14/2006 09:01 PM

Please respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc	"'Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List'" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject	[epf-dev] Intro page

Hi Steve, 

As you recall, at Wednesday's status meeting I expressed the concern that
the intro graphic, while cool, introduces another set of things that look
a lot like the disciplines, which could be confusing.  To address
this concern, Per has agreed to draft up some pages for each of these areas.

After Sept 30, we can further explore my proposal to align these areas
with the disciplines. 
(For reference, here is what I had in mind - although from informal discussions,
it looks like it will take a while to gel): 
- rename "Intent" to be "Requirements", to match the
discipline 
- Solution would have sub-disciplines of Implementation, Test, AnD, and
later deployment. 
- Management would have CM and Project Management, and later Environment.
- Communication and Collaboration becomes a new discipline that describes
general concepts and responsibilities of all team members.
For now, the Any Role and "submit a change request" would be
in this discipline.  Longer term would be general review procedures,
guidance on scrums, searching for reusable assets and 
providing feedback, resolving conflict, etc.)

Hope that works for you. 

Cheers, 

Bruce MacIsaac
Manager - RUP/OpenUP Content
bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (408)863-8718
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev

Attachment: Sub-process descriptions.doc
Description: Binary data