EPF Content
E1 - Status Assessment

1.	Summary
Iteration #	I2	
Assessment target	EPF Content	
Assessment date	June 4, 2008	
Participants	•	Ricardo Balduino
•	Chris Sibbald
•	Jim Ruehlin
•	Ana Pereira	
Project status overview	•	Practice Library – most practices have started weekly calls, have bugs created in Bugzilla, and contributors speeding up on work – Yellow 
•	Other content areas, e.g. Testing and Architecture practices, and Scrum didn’t have representatives in the meeting today, so status hasn’t been reported– Red 	

2.	Assessment against Objectives
Below you find assessment against objectives defined for E1 in the release 1.5 Project Plan.
•	Stabilize key structural decisions for Practice Library
•	Make sure all practices (in terms of structure) follow the method authoring guidelines
o	Complete. Library structure is stable now and tool capabilities are now available to support practices (ex. Slot assignment, Practice Elements update).  Practice owners to confirm structure is correct for each practice (ex. leveraging slots, using practice elements properly).
•	Committers and contributors to be proficient with the method authoring method
o	Not-complete.  See discussion below about short whitepaper, summary to make easier for contributors to contribute.  Committers should be familiar with MAM, but contributors don’t need to.
•	Put out a beta and ask OpenUP users for feedback
o	Not done.  Content not ready yet.  Defer till end of June.

3.	Status Report
Management Practices
Ana reported that the goal is to have ID and 2LPP done by the end of the next iteration.  Then she will concentrate on the other practices.  A summary of status by practice is provided below.  Details available at http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pZ6O9nRphhWtoMab5bjIBcg
•	ID Practice
o	Closed three work items (227166, 227163, 227164)
o	Deferred three work items to next iteration (227167, 227170, 227165)
o	Re-categorized old OpenUP work item to be address in next iteration (171119)
•	2LPP
o	Closed one work item (227169)
o	Verified one work item (227168)
o	Resolved one work item (227172)
o	Five work items scheduled for next iteration.
•	RVL
o	3 work items assigned to next iteration.
o	4 new work items tentatively scheduled for M4.
•	WT
o	3 work items assigned to next iteration (M3)
o	2 work items tentatively scheduled for M4.

Agile Testing Practice
Nate sent an email stating that he could not make it to today’s call. No progress reported on this practice on last 2 iterations. 

EA, ED and TDD Practices
Jim reported:
•	Research on ED on-going at ATS.  Jim is the only committer on this team.
•	

Shared Vision Practice and Overarching Issues
Steve didn’t join the call. On last report, Steve said he will be unable to sign up for work until some point in June. Ricardo asked if Chris would have time to take this over.  Unfortunately, with current commitments elsewhere Chris doesn’t think it would be wise for him to commit to more work at this time.

CI, CM and UCDD Practices
Chris Sibbald reported that not as much progress was made as hoped due to the “day job” getting in the way.  Old OpenUP work items were reviewed and either closed (overtaken by events) or re-assigned to the practice library work.  Chris also upgraded to EPF V1.5 and reviewed the Method Authoring Method.  Status by practice:
•	CI Practice
o	Resolved three Work items this iteration (226617, 229147, 231146).
o	There are currently 6 other work items assigned to Chris.
o	Several telecons held to discuss the CI practice (Bruce Macisaac, Yvonne Daily, Chris Sibbald).  Proposed work being reviewed.  Expect to raise more Work Items.
•	Change Management Practice
o	Currently there are 4 work items open.  All are assigned to Chris.
•	Use-Case Driven Development
o	Resolved one work item (226781).
o	There are currently 4 other work items assigned to Chris.

4.	Work Items - Plan vs. Actual
This is current status of work items. Meaningful milestone numbers have been provided for teams to assign bugs accordingly. 

Link to Bugzilla work on all practices:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=anywords&short_desc=ID%3A+2LPP%3A+RVL%3A+WT%3A+CM%3A+TDD%3A+ED%3A+EA%3A+SV%3A+UCDD%3A+AT%3A+CI%3A+OpenUP%3A+%5BPracLib%5D&classification=Technology&product=EPF&component=Content&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&known_name=PM+Practices&query_based_on=PM+Practices&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=

Teams, please also make use of proposed prefixes to describe bugs, so we can easily generate queries in Bugzilla (refer to this email for details on proposed prefixes: http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epf-dev/msg02714.html

Link to old OpenUP bugs – practice leads need to clean up those bugs and assign to new effort / close as appropriate:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/report.cgi?x_axis_field=bug_status&y_axis_field=assigned_to&z_axis_field=target_milestone&query_format=report-table&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&classification=Technology&product=EPF&component=Content&component=Content+Translation&component=Documentation&component=Website&version=0.9&version=1.0&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2! =&bugidtype=! include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=2006-10-01&chfieldt o=Now&chfieldvalue=&format=table&action=wrap&field0-0-0=assigned_to&type0-0-0=notequals&value0-0-0=epf.tool-inbox%40eclipse.org 

5.	Other Concerns and Deviations
•	Ricardo voiced concern over the level of participation in the past couple of iterations.  Chris noted that on his part is not for lack of will, but rather lack of time to do more.
•	Ana noted that most of the work to-date on the practice library is re-structuring which is not as interesting as authoring new content…so perhaps that has caused some lack of interest
•	Jim noted that the new structure, like anything new, is perhaps a bit intimidating.  Perhaps leveraging other means to harvest content from contributors (Wiki, documents attached to bugs) would make it easier for people to contribute.  Chris stated that although the MAM is very useful, it is a bit intimidating in itself and has a lot of architectural content that is not really needed if someone just wants to contribute content to create a practice.  Perhaps a very short paper describing the structure and intent of practices would help people wrap their minds around “this is the content I should produce for a new practice”…a “table of contents” for a practice.
•	Ana noted that perhaps recruiting people for new practices would generate more interest.  Jim also noted that we need to communicate that the practice library is more than just OpenUP.
•	We should start including the iteration reports from Bugzilla (tables) in the iteration assessment/plan as this was very useful and motivating.  Ricardo will look into creating the relevant query.

6.	Lessons Learned
•	See Concerns and Discussion above.

7.	Planned for next iteration
o	The current project plan has the following goals for Construction iteration C1:
o	Objectives – Deliver content
•	Define what practices to deliver
o	Put out a beta and ask OpenUP users for feedback (Deferred from E1).