Hi Ken,

I think the point is that without the qualifier, it makes it hard to name 
alternative change management practices.
In other words, if we have 3 change management practice alternatives, and 
one is called change management, it's hard from the name to know what kind 
of change management is being described
by the practice.  Also, it may seem unfair for us to claim copyright to 
"change management" - by adding some kind of qualifier, at least we are 
only claiming our brand of change management.
Another suggestion from Per is "Informal Change Management".
Is that better than "Basic"?

Note that this practice, as it stands, just has one task, which is to 
submit change requests, and otherwise changes are really being addressed 
as part of 
work item management done by the iterative development practice.  It's not 
a traditional formal change management approach with a CCB and unique 
states for change requests.

Bruce MacIsaac
Manager - RUP/OpenUP Content
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: (408)463-5140




"Ken Clyne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
08/12/2008 01:11 PM
Please respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <[email protected]>


To
"Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List" <[email protected]>
cc

Subject
Re: [epf-dev] Renaming "Change Management" practice to "Basic Change 
Management"






I don't know I think you got it right the first time.  Firstly, I don't 
think its fair for any one group to claim copyright to the term Change 
Management. Secondly the term "Basic" is almost pejorative and somehow 
diminishes the importance of the practice (think about Basic Project 
Management, Basic Architecture etc).  Thirdly, I'm not sure we need a 
qualifier, one would think the context would be sufficient if we put 
"Basic" before one practice what does that mean about the other practices.

My $0.03


On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Bruce Macisaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

Chris Sibbald and I would like to make this change to address concerns 
raised by reviewers. 
The basic concern is that they expected from the name that this would be a 
formal change management practice, and it's not. 

See bugzilla: 







243928 





I plan to make this change tomorrow, so if there are any concerns at all 
with this, please let me know as soon as possible. 

Thanks, 

Bruce MacIsaac
Manager - RUP/OpenUP Content
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: (408)463-5140


_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to