FYI. Please review this rather important mail which introduces the redefinition of processes to manage interaction between UC projects and FI-WARE, as per agreement reached at the FI-PPP Architecture Board.
Cheers,
-- Juanjo Hierro
-------------
Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital
website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es>
email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro
FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect
You can follow FI-WARE at:
website: http://www.fi-ware.eu
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242
twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware
linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [FI-PPP AB] IMPORTANT: Renewed processes to manage interaction between UC projects and FI-WARE
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:08:23 +0200
From: Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
To: ab at fi-ppp.eu<mailto:ab at fi-ppp.eu> <ab at fi-ppp.eu><mailto:ab at fi-ppp.eu>
Dear colleagues,
This email is going to be a bit long, but is quite important so I kindly ask you to devote the necessary time to read it carefully.
I intend to summarize here what would be my proposal about how to manage interaction between UC projects and FI-WARE from now on. The proposal summarizes what we have already discussed and agreed during our last meeting in Espoo as well as our last virtual meeting. Nothing that should be new, but let's try to write things black on white to make sure we communicate and implement next steps properly.
The description of the defined process will be published on the FI-WARE public wiki, updating what needs to be updated regarding description of processes adopted so far. So please make any comment or propose any change that may lead to the best results. My goal is to get it finished and published by end of this week, so please send your comments/feedback ASAP.
First of all, let me carry out an analysis about where we are and lessons learned. I believe it was worth trying to find out if we could share a common analysis about results so far. This may be useful in order to provide some feedback in response to the FI-PPP Interim Assessment Report, or to the EC or even the FI-PPP SB, among others.
Before May this year, we have tried that interaction between the UC projects and FI-WARE were managed mostly through the "FI-WARE Theme/Epic/Feature requests" tracker. FI-WARE is trying to follow an Agile approach in the development of FI-WARE GEs, therefore it sound like natural that influence on the definition of FI-WARE GEs and/or its roadmap took the form of requests for addition of Themes, Epics or even Features in the different FI-WARE backlogs. The analysis of the results of this exercise so far, is twofold:
* On one hand, the experience has been a little bit frustrating in what respect to identification of new Theme/Epic/Features to be considered for FI-WARE GEs under development. This shouldn't be taken as the fault of any party but a natural consequence derived from the fact that UC projects started at the same time as FI-WARE and this has proven not to be the best idea. A consequence of that was that there was not an enough-detailed description of FI-WARE GEs ready until delivery of the FI-WARE Architecture and Open Specifications. Therefore, UC projects were not able to issue requests that were not too generic or hard to find out if applicable to FI-WARE GEs under development.
* On the other hand, the experience has been extremely useful to identify topics that were clearly out of the scope of FI-WARE and, therefore, potential candidates for FI-WARE Open Calls. Thanks to the Theme/Epics/Feature requests that were compiled by the end of 2011 and January 2012, we were able to carry out an analysis that lead to identification of such topics. This materialized in the launch of the first FI-WARE Open Call as well as the creation of a number of Task Forces on dedicated topics that will lead to definition of the 2nd Open Call
I believe it is worth mentioned these two sides of the story because I believe we tend to over-emphasize the former point while it would be fair to also emphasize of what has been good results, which we may have not been achieved going other way.
Now that more detailed information about what FI-WARE is developing and therefore going to provide, and based on the several lessons we have learned, we will review the processes we are going to follow from now on in order to manage interaction between UC projects and FI-WARE, trying to be more Agile and efficient.
The redesign of these processes will be guided by the need to add speed and fluency to communication. This without going out of control, unable to monitor what's going, therefore without being to perform a diagnostic about when something is not working.
Following these two principles (speed-fluency and ability-to-measure-progress), here it is the design of the new process:
1. We will use the "FI-WARE General Support" Tracker [1] to request the initiation of any interaction between FI-WARE and the UC projects around any topic
* Tickets can be issued by any UC project (e.g., to get more info about FI-WARE GE <A>) or by FI-WARE (e.g., to further discuss how FI-WARE GE <X> can be used as part of the Architecture of UC project <Y>)
* We have to understand that tickets are mostly created to keep record about interaction so that we can push from both sides whenever communication gets blocked or slowed down. Teams at both sides involved in resolution of a ticket should be ready to setup dedicated virtual or f2f meetings when required as a mean to speed up the processes.
* Dedicated communication teams will be defined both at FI-WARE and each of the UC projects. They will be the ones that will monitor progress of tickets and regularly report on progress to the FI-PPP AB.
* The "FI-WARE General Support" Tracker doesn't require so much formalism to create a ticket. Creating a ticket declaring in the Summary "We would like to learn how NGSI can be used with OGC standards" or "We would like to find out whether Microsoft Windows can be supported in the FI-WARE Testbed" should be enough.
* The more we record on the trackers while interacting, the better. Attaching notes/minutes from virtual/f2f meetings or relevant documents or pointers to the wiki which help to answer the questions, would be considered a good practice. FI-WARE teams should try to derive enhancements on existing documentation or entries for a FI-WARE Technical FAQ. It would be nice to keep track of those results as attachments to each ticket.
* Tickets should be merged when clearly link to the same topic (note that several UC projects may formulate similar questions). This may be helpful to improve throughput of FI-WARE Teams answering questions (e.g., they will be able to setup the same virtual meeting to address issues about a given GE raised by several UC projects)
2. Management of tickets in the "FI-WARE General Support" Tracker will typically lead to:
* enhancements in existing documentation, potentially creating a new items of the FI-WARE Technical FAQ
* creation of a ticket in the "FI-WARE Theme/Epic/Feature requests" tracker [1]
3. We will not submit any ticket to the "FI-WARE Theme/Epic/Feature Requests" tracker until there has been enough discussion between the UC projects and FI-WARE (typically around some ticket in the "FI-WARE General Support" tracker) as to reach an overall consensus at both sides that it is worth creating a ticket on that tracker which maps to a new Theme/Epic/Feature not yet considered in the FI-WARE Backlog (reaching the level of detail of something that can be categorized as Feature [2] is highly desirable) .
To ensure that we start from a blank page ... we will try to perform the necessary analysis of the current tickets at both FI-WARE trackers as to drop any useless ticket by mid July (status to be checked during the FI-PPP AB f2f meeting in Vienna)
[1] - https://forge.fi-ware.eu/tracker/?group_id=7
[2] - see definition of Feature in http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FI-WARE_Agile_Development_Methodology
Best regards,
-- Juanjo Hierro
-------------
Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital
website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es>
email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro
FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect
You can follow FI-WARE at:
website: http://www.fi-ware.eu
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242
twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware
linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932
________________________________
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at.
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
________________________________
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at.
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpl/attachments/20120620/c8c27398/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ab mailing list
Ab at fi-ppp.eu
http://lists.fi-ppp.eu/mailman/listinfo/ab
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy