what about Flexible ? ... Flexible Change or Scope Management? ... contrasting with traditional change management that seems to be more rigid ...
Ana On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Bruce Macisaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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]<[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* <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=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] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > phone: (408)463-5140 > > > _______________________________________________ > epf-dev mailing list* > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[email protected]>* > **https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev*<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 > >
_______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
