Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

perfsonar-dev - Drawing Conclusion Meeting - Summary of Developers Session 3

Subject: perfsonar development work

List archive

Drawing Conclusion Meeting - Summary of Developers Session 3


Chronological Thread 
  • From:
  • To:
  • Subject: Drawing Conclusion Meeting - Summary of Developers Session 3
  • Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:43:02 +0100 (CET)

Hi all,

find attached the summary notes of the developers session 3 of the
drawing conclusion meetings

Best Regards
David Schmitz
Developers Session 3. Interaction within the project

###############################################

1. AL and WIL roles
Al = activity leader
WIL = work item leader

- WIL have no clear definition of responsibilities/tasks/work (of the roles)
(there's the problem to identify who is responsible for what)

###############################################

2. Meetings & Conf Calls
+: very good that we have them (help a lot to make the progress in the
project)
+: IM application (mainly text messaging) is very useful for
communication during tests and other works (consider to use other
applications than Skype)
- needed things: agenda, early available minutes
concise minutes or particularly summary extracted out of the minutes;
most important things discussed:
action backlog + decision log (quick overview)

- reestablish frequent calls with Internet II

###############################################

3. collaborative and comm tools
-: use ticket systems for event instead of bugzilla (only sw devel)
investigate alternatives for bugzilla: e.g. trac
separated for different user groups (e.g. devel, depolyment, operation,
user)
maybe use different tools to do this

bugzilla managed by a person in charge of it who is familiar with it
and regularly keypt uptodate

-: knowledgebase: useful tool, but who is responsible for it, find
alternatives (e.g. trac)

-: wiki: one person in charge of (re)organizing it

-: missing a tool for tracking the progress of work

-: in general: where to locate these tools/resources (currently spreaded over
different domains)?

-: if a person in charge of a tool/area (e.g. bugzilla, test servers) leaves
the project
find very immediatelly a successor (not waiting months)

-: idea:
consider using the same tools (kb) with I2 (one place), but who to keep
one person in charge of it ?

###############################################

4. objective identification and user identification

related to first session (internal processes) yesterday

-: involve regularly the end user

###############################################



  • Drawing Conclusion Meeting - Summary of Developers Session 3, David . Schmitz, 01/09/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page