Hi A, this woudl eb good things to happen. Can you, or anybody else listening, helkp making sure that any of that is happening?
I have myself had discussions with some of the top people at DoD wrt making EPF the tool of choice for capturing DoD process guidance... I think these type of discussions are vital for EPF, it is a very powerful tool set that can and should be used by a variety of organization and standards as the ones you mention... Chris Armstrong has e.g. worked on getting the Open Group to adopt EPF... But it takes time so we are looking for people that want to help driving adoption. Cheers Per Kroll STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework Rational Software, IBM Corp (M) 408-219-2963 "Asterion Daedalus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/05/2007 10:15 PM Please respond to Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@eclipse.org> To epf-dev@eclipse.org cc Subject [epf-dev] RE: epf-dev Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10 I am thinking that the next issue is setting up a method/process plugin zoo and inviting participation from camps as far afield as 12207, DO178B yadda process camps, down to URN and other method camps. Someone should coax the SWEBOK to re-tool. Set up EPF as THE tool for IP exchange in software engineering and lowly software development. Cheers, A >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: epf-dev@eclipse.org >To: epf-dev@eclipse.org >Subject: epf-dev Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10 >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:00:19 -0400 (EDT) > >Send epf-dev mailing list submissions to > epf-dev@eclipse.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of epf-dev digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished? > (Jaana Nyfjord) > 2. RE: General: Questions on Introduction to OpenUP node > intreebrowser (Ben Williams) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:23:24 +0200 (CEST) >From: "Jaana Nyfjord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some > unpublished? >To: "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List" > <epf-dev@eclipse.org> >Cc: "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List" > <epf-dev@eclipse.org>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > >I also agree with adding this extra capability pattern. It makes certainly >makes sense, and I believe it will only improve the position of OpenUP. > >My only concern is that we should be very clear and consistent with the >message about what is considered "default", and what are variations in >order to avoid any misunderstanding. > >Cheers >Jaana N > > > > I agree that would have value. We could label them as sample variations >of > > OpenUP we have seen an interest in. > > > > We have one default view of what type of development we want to promote, > > but we realize that many would like to put their own twise. So, we >provide > > some examples of such variations... > > > > Cheers > > > > Per Kroll > > STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC > > Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework > > Rational Software, IBM Corp > > (M) 408-219-2963 > > > > > > > > Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 06/29/2007 11:37 AM > > Please respond to > > Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@eclipse.org> > > > > > > To > > Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@eclipse.org> > > cc > > > > Subject > > Re: [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that having a few extra capability patterns that show a couple > > of different ways of using OpenUP is fine. What we don't want to have is > > 100 more patterns to create 200 different variations :-) > > We want to keep OpenUP minimal, and it is fine if you can slightly vary > > it, without major customization, as it comes out-of-the-box. > > We can provide 1 or 2 canned configurations that allow the process to be > > easily published with those variations you mentioned below. Ideally, no > > matter what configuration you publish, the published process is called > > OpenUP. > > > > Does it make sense? Are we aiming that for this release or next? > > > > Ricardo Balduino > > IBM Rational Software (www.ibm.com/rational) > > Eclipse Process Framework (www.eclipse.org/epf) > > > > > > > > "Brian Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 06/29/2007 06:14 AM > > > > Please respond to > > Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@eclipse.org> > > > > > > To > > "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List" ><epf-dev@eclipse.org> > > cc > > > > Subject > > [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hiho, > > > > We want OpenUP to be an enactable process, but also it should be a good > > example of usage of the Eclipse Process Framework. > > > > We have had some discussion about whether or not there is development in > > Inception. The discussion has led us to not include development as the > > ?default? (i.e. the only supplied Inception iteration template) while > > having some verbiage around possibly including additional activities for > > development. > > > > The original 0.9 release didn?t enforce Test-driven development. In > > discussions we noted that we wanted to push TDD because it is a very > > valuable technique. The current Develop Solution activity is strictly > > TDD. But TDD is something that some organizations are not applying. > > > > What do people think about including some additional capability patterns > > in the OpenUP repository that would not be in the default published >OpenUP > > process? This gives us a stronger message of ?This is the default, but >it > > is considered ?valid? to?? for some of these expected variations. And > > this might make the repository a stronger example of appropriate usages >of > > EPF (the repository has information and some amount of that is assembled > > into a published process). > > > > ------------ b > > _______________________________________________ > > epf-dev mailing list > > epf-dev@eclipse.org > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev > > _______________________________________________ > > epf-dev mailing list > > epf-dev@eclipse.org > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > epf-dev mailing list > > epf-dev@eclipse.org > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev > > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:23:31 +0200 >From: "Ben Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: [epf-dev] General: Questions on Introduction to OpenUP > node intreebrowser >To: "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List" > <epf-dev@eclipse.org> >Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >My comments embedded below, > > > >Ben > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Behalf Of Per Kroll >Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:26 AM >To: epf-dev@eclipse.org >Subject: [epf-dev] General: Questions on Introduction to OpenUP node >intreebrowser > > > > >Hi, > >I have a few questions regarding the node "Introduction to OpenUP" >- Should we merge "Introduction to OpenUP" and "OpenUP in a Nutshell"? ><I think yes> > >[BW] I vote yes > > >- Will the overview graph be at "Introduction to OpenUP"? <I think yes, >but this is becoming a length page, is that wise for an intro page?> > >[BW] As per Ricardos comments, yes I think it needs to be, and should be >displayed at the top of the page > > >- Do we still need "OpenUP Fundamental Concepts"? I have already >referenced the 4 phases, risk, and iteration from Governance lifecycle >and Iteration lifecycle respectively. I also referenced Software >Architecture from Micro iteration, and I could reference Use Case, from >Micro Increment, but I do not think there is a great logical connection ><I think no, we do not need "OpenUP Fundamental Concepts". > > >[BW] What is the rationale for getting rid of this? > > > >Cheers > >Per Kroll >STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC >Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework >Rational Software, IBM Corp >(M) 408-219-2963 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Telelogic Lifecycle Solutions: >Helping You Define, Design & Deliver Advanced Systems & Software >Learn More at www.telelogic.com > > >Ben Williams >Director of Product Management, Lifecycle Solutions >Telelogic UK Ltd >Northbrook House, Oxford Science Park, >Oxford >OX4 4GA, United Kingdom >Phone: +44 020 7193 7067 >Fax: +44 (1865) 784 286 >Mobile phone: +44 (7710) 637 067 > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.telelogic.com > >Telelogic - Requirements-Driven Innovation! >------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment or >enclosure, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >addressed and may contain confidential material. Any unauthorized use, >review, retransmissions, dissemination, copying or other use of this >information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is >prohibited. >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: >https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev/attachments/20070704/4a503f01/attachment.html > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >epf-dev mailing list >epf-dev@eclipse.org >https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev > > >End of epf-dev Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10 >*************************************** _________________________________________________________________ Advertisement: New jobsjobsjobs.com.au. Find thousands of jobs online now! http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fad%2Eau%2Edoubleclick%2Enet%2Fclk%3B114014868%3B17770752%3Bi%3Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ejobsjobsjobs%2Ecom%2Eau&_t=762242361&_r=Hotmail_email_tagline_July07&_m=EXT _______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list epf-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
_______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list epf-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
