I like it, though maybe I would prefer labelling onHold to reviewing. No end task status (resolved, closed)? Is it managed at the project or phase level ?
Jacques De : "Hans Bakker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I thought more about it and like to present a different approach for the > status on a task. > > To allow for many approval authorities: > Anybody who need to approve the task will be a performer with a > appropriate roleTypeId > > the status on a task is largely system controlled (1-4): > > 1: unassigned -> the task has no performers > 2: assigned -> the task has one or more performers > 3. in-progress -> at least one performer has registered > time on the task > 4. completed -> all attached performers have set their > status to completed > 5. onHold -> the projectmanager can set this status and > can be set back to status 1-3 > 6. cancelled -> again can be set by the projectmanager > > Internally in the system the status is as follows: > 1. created (further specified by the system as stated above) > 2. completed > 3. cancelled > 4. onhold > > what is the opinion of the community? > > Regards, > Hans >
