On Tue, December 12, 2006 9:23 am, Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting Lan Barnes as of Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 05:59:13AM -0800:
-snip of the whole enchilada- I either have to agree with you or drive over there, strip to the waist, and wrestle you into submission. Knowing my limitations, I agree. Pray let me insert one teeny tiny thing about CMM. The CMM is emphirical. It's a bunch of observations saying "when we observe organizations doing these things, they have this kind of success." I used to think it was pretty dingy until I got dragged into improving stuff at a couple of places. Now I see it as an excellent road map ... a template. And BTW, it's not document-centric. It's process centric. I grant you, the process is supposed to be "written" and followed, but that's fair because people can't remember jack, and besides, personnel churns. But the process itself can be anything. "If development wants a build from SCM, they put a flag in the flower pot and move it to the front of the balcony" (I wonder who'll spot that reference). I personally eschew formal documentation for all but the most formal of processes. Instead I lean toward electronic communication that follows process, and even better, fills a _real_ data base with transactions for real-time status visibility and development of management metrics. Frankly, I don't ever want to have to count emails again to see how many builds were requested/done in a given time period. But that's me. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
