"Can we help clarify your concern without isolating the Scrum folks?" Yup, you did it for me with this response :)
Cheers, -Lyndon- On 8/28/07, Nate Oster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lyndon, > > > > Personally, I like the mixed nature of the mailing list, but I see what > you mean. It'll be great when there's so much traffic that is exclusively > about the EPF Composer tool, that we just can't keep mixing process and > method content discussion with the tool discussion. At that point, I'll > gladly back anyone's motion to create a separate list. > > > > For now, though, I like the cross-pollination effect. I can be a "lurker" > on the Scrum stuff (which I read with interest, but haven't responded to > yet), but active on the OpenUP content discussion. Occasionally, I'll jump > in on a tools question. > > > > As for where EPF starts and OpenUP finishes – that's a fair concern, > especially if we start having Scrum Alliance folks wondering if EPF > Composer, *as a tool*, is an "OpenUP thing." ;) Historically, OpenUP was > intended as the first of several "example processes" that would ship with > the EPF tool. > > > > Ideally, I'd love to see more distinct communities develop around several > complete processes, without losing the ecosystem effect that the EPF > Composer's plug-in architecture provides. Can we help clarify your concern > without isolating the Scrum folks? > > > > Thanks, > > Nate > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On > Behalf Of *Lyndon Washington > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:28 PM > *To:* Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List > *Subject:* Re: [epf-dev] Wednesday Release Planning Call > > > > Hi Steve and others, > > I am always confused about where EPF starts and OpenUP finishes. With > Scrum I forsee the challenge of representing the framework in a consistent > fashion that any Scrum Master or member of the Scrum Alliance would look > over the content and agree that it provides the right level of guidance and > information to let an organization map it to their working process lives. > > This type of discussion on OpenUP next steps seems to be something that is > outside of the tool that you are using to capture and document it, it almost > seems that it deserves to be discussed and allowed to flourish outside of > the EPF umbrella. > > Am I missing something? I would be very interested to hear if it is the > intention to keep both subjects closely tied together. > > Cheers, > -Lyndon- > > On 8/28/07, *Steve Adolph* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello everyone: > > > > After last week's call, I was thinking more about what I believe is > necessary to include in the next release of OpenUP. In my opinion a > methodology does not survive and prosper based on its own merits, it > survives because there is a community. IMHO, XP and Scrum have taken off > because they are easy to get started with (although the ease of getting > started does not necessarily imply ease of use), they have charismatic > champions telling their audience what the audience wants to hear. There is a > wide range of supporting material including books and courses to help people > get started with these methods. If OpenUP is to survive and find its place > in the hearts and minds of developers then we need to focus on capturing > people's imaginations. In this era of 10 second sound bites we need to do > that quickly. I would like to propose the following activities for general > and overarching issues: > > > > 1) We need an OpenUP course – or more to the point, course material > we can spin into a half day tutorial or re-spin into a two day "hands on" > workshop. Something that not only introduced OpenUP but iterative > development. A possible course title is "Iterative Development with OpenUP". > > > 2) I think we need a version of OpenUP that is less intimidating than > the version we have at the moment. OpenUP is suppose to be for small teams > yet it has the appearance of a voluminous and complex process. What if we > created some kind of "abridged" version that reduced the cognitive load on > the early adopters? This version would not be maintained as part of the > composer. Rather, it would be more like a cheat sheet that simply captured > the essence, phase, iterations, work item list, focus on architecture, risk > management. A version that if a person took a half day OpenUP tutorial they > had at least a chance of making a positive change using OpenUP. > > 3) I also believe we need to strongly encourage and support > translation efforts. I know there was some interest in creating a Russian > translation of OpenUP, but I do not know what has happened since. > > 4) A book? I was intrigued by the suggestion of creating a "red > book". I don't know if I can physically sequester myself with a writing > team, but I am willing to wager that we have enough material between us to > create a simple book. Perhaps "Post Agile Development with OpenUP" > > > > These are just some thoughts I had for tomorrow's call. Look forward to > chatting with you all… > > Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > epf-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > epf-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev > >
_______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
