Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [epf-dev] Inconsistency: Additional Performers
I can definitely be on the con call tomorrow, just might not have good computer access.  Not sure yet.
 
I'll take a pass at https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=159211 and open a similar bug for design tasks if appropriate.  I really prefer introducing a new bug, keeps it clean.
 
- Scott
 

Scott W. Ambler
Practice Leader Agile Development, IBM
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/rational/bios/ambler.html
 
Every organization gets the process that it deserves.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:23 PM
Subject: RE: [epf-dev] Inconsistency: Additional Performers

Scott and I just got off the phone about this. Here’s what we recommend to address this:

 

  1. Have a concall at 7 AM Pacific tomorrow. Go through the architecture & development tasks and see if they need additional performers. If a task does warrant it, determine which step(s) that task is involved in, and assign someone to write the content.
  2. After the call, everyone writes the content they’ve committed to and submits it to CVS. At 10:00 pacific all changes should be in CVS and everyone reviews each other’s materials. Note any glaring problems.
  3. Have a quick concall at 10:30 Pacific where any showstoppers are communicated (hopefully there will be none). After the call the original writers fix the task steps as appropriate.

 

Scott can’t be on the call in the morning so he’s going to look it over tonight and send his recommendations.

 

If people think this scenario would work, I’ll set up the meeting. If someone has an easier solution then let’s do that!

 

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

 

From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of "Scott W. Ambler" <swa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 2:56 PM
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Inconsistency: Additional Performers

 


Agreed. We need to update these tasks ASAP.

Should we post bugs for each individual task and then a parent bug?

- Scott

On Thu, September 28, 2006 5:35 pm, Per Kroll said:
> Hi,
>
> we have a pretty significant difference in usage of Additional
> Performance.
>
> For the Intent and PM tasks , we have many additional performers to
> articulate the collaborative nature, which is enabled by having all roles
> in teh collaboration layer
> For the Solutions tasks, we have normally no additional performers. I am
> fine with that for some tasks like "Run tests", where you do not need to
> collaborate with tons of people, but I do not like that the architect is
> more or less doing all architecture work without collaborating with
> everybody in the team, or the developer do design without working with
> analyst and tester (architect is already there). I think Design shold be a
> collaborative task....
>
> What do you others think? I am afraid that current implementation will
> come across as more traditional than agile....
>
> I think this can be addressed by addressing the 3 arch tasks, + design
> task..

Practice Leader Agile Development, IBM Rational
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/rational/bios/ambler.html

Refactoring Databases (
http://www.ambysoft.com/books/refactoringDatabases.html ) is now
available.

_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev

_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev

Back to the top