[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [epf-dev] Status from 3/30 BUP call with authors
|
Sorry for this long mail but I will have no access to the internet for
the next 2 weeks and I wont be able to attend the next conference call….
so I will try to resume all my content authoring ideas for contributing
to BUP 1.0 here… you can move to bugzilla what you agree to add and I
will pick up work when I come back
As I told in Bilbao meeting, my experience with the RUP comes from
several years of “small projects “ (teams of 3 to 6 people and involve 3
to 6 months of development effort) … and there are some good practices
that I would like to see in BUP, even in small projects, otherwise I
believe there will be a lot of plug-ins to BUP adding these basic things:
Requirements:
... vision and use cases are not enough in requirements ...even in small
projects:
1) Glossary: if you don’t define project domain terms somewhere the
definition will end-up mixed with the use cases… when needed we also add
a simple domain model to the glossary (this is not big upfront
design…see (http://www.agiledata.org/essays/agileDataModeling.html) …
and sometimes stakeholders express their requirements in these terms
more easily than in use cases (I want a shopping cart) … can we add a
Glossary to BUP?… or at least a chapter to the Vision?
2) Rules: the same for business rules: separate business rules out of
use cases… rules are also requirements that can developed separately …
if they are spread out on use cases they will end up spread out in the
code… can we add a Rule Catalog artifact to BUP or a specific section on
the Supporting Requirements? (I am quoting Scott Ambler again but I know
that he is reading this email list
http://www.agilemodeling.com/artifacts/businessRule.htm) … sometimes
stakeholders don’t care much about reading use cases but they do care
about getting business rules definition right
Architecture
… get stakeholders involved in the architecture (at the system boundaries)
1) GUI Architecture - If we let the developers pick up scenarios and
implement them without some kind of user interface guidelines and global
mechanisms (menus structure,, navigation map … etc) the GUI will be a
mess … even with the prototype … I think that it is missing some kind of
user Interface structuring and guidance … can we add these
responsibility to the architect or analyst?...and discuss it with the
stakeholder along with the prototype?
2) Interface with external Systems – more and more we have to develop
code for systems where the actor is not a person but another system. The
architect should identify these communication interfaces and discuss
them with the stakeholders responsible for those systems …because
usually external systems have to be modified to use the services we are
providing (or vice-versa) this is not a bit discussion on SOA (the
interface can be a file or a stored procedure, for instance) …but it can
lay out the foundation for a SOA plug-in to BUP latter … this is part of
the architecture but we can’t put in on Software Architecture Document
because stakeholders usually don’t read these document … but they need
it…I think that we also need a step on Task: Analyze the Architecture on
this subject (identify external services?)
3) There is nothing on Data Modeling on BUP? (even agile?)
Deployment…there is no deployment discipline? What is the purpose of
making the software if it is not for deploying? …what is the purpose of
Transition Phase in BUP ? it does not have to be a lot of content … I
propose that we consider the minimum:
1) If we have a Build work product on Implementation I would add a
“Release” work product on deployment with some System Requirements,
Installation Instructions and known issues … we have an example on
(http://www.eclipse.org/epf/downloads/downloads.php) …and add a task for
Create Release
best regards
Ana Pereira
Brian Lyons wrote:
hiho,
On Thursday, 3/30 at 8am PST, there was a conference call on assigning
ownership to BUP content as we modify and complete the IBM donation
for the 1.0 launch scheduled for 9/1/2006.
On the call were:
· Steve Adolph, UBC
· Ricardo Balduino, IBM
· Mark Dickson, Xansas/DSDM Consortium
· Chris Doyle, Synergy Plus
· Brian Lyons, Number Six Software, Inc.
· Bruce MacIsaac, IBM
· Jim Ruehl, IBM
· Chris Sibbald, Telelogic
We decided to have each content package in BUP assigned to a committer
(or – based on duration it is taking – someone on track to be a
committer). We discussed that the templates package is not really a
logical separate area, but only broken out for convenience of process
engineers; each template would be the responsibility of the owner of
the relevant discipline. In this pass the Process is not the focus.
The assignment of a package does not imply that the individual is
solely responsible for authoring all the content. The assignment of
the package is responsibility that the content gets authored.
Based on the participants on the call, the responsible parties are
shown below. One addition is that we have a pending decision on
project management because Kirti Vaidya had proclaimed an interest in
that, but was not on the call.
*Package*
*Owner*
architecture
Chris Dickson, Xansas
change_management
<vacant>
development
<vacant>
general
Steve Adolph, UBC
project_management
Kirti Vaidya, Covansys (pending)
requirements
Chris Sibbald, Telelogic
test
Brian Lyons, Number Six Software
Ricardo Balduino of IBM will manage the overall architecture of the
process. Based on the way EPF Composer works, Ricardo will be
responsible for managing all relationships between elements. And he is
responsible for creating any additional elements that will
subsequently be assigned to reside in a package.
If you are a committer or on your way to becoming one and you have an
interest in being responsible for cm or development, please reply.
Everyone interested in contributing content should be getting Eclipse
setup for CVS to access BUP. That is the best way to get the most
up-to-date content. This is the real-time development repository that
committers check their work into. Official committers have read-write
access, but anyone can use it to regularly pull the very latest content.
There will be a conference call on Thursday, 4/6 at 8am PST to discuss
updates and status of this work. We have a milestone on 4/15 to be
underway with authoring content and have all elements defined (albeit
possibly incomplete). As the various guidelines are often driven by
the detail in the other process elements, we are giving ourselves some
leeway in not strictly baselining those by that date.
------------ b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
