Brian Gupta wrote: >> > Well, Indiana is intended to be a product - an OpenSolaris >> distribution with a >> > regular release schedule. >> > >> > >> So, I'd expect to see some documents from you that describe this >> product. Have you a 1-pager that describes the basics? >> >> Project Description >> Risks and Assumptions >> Business Summary >> Problem Area >> Market/Requester >> Business Justification >> Competitive Analysis >> Opportunity Window/Exposure >> How will you know when you are done? >> Technical Description >> Details >> Bug/RFE Number(s) >> In Scope >> Out of Scope >> Doc Impact >> Admin/Config impact >> HA Impact >> I18N/L10N impact >> Packaging & Delivery >> Security Impact >> Dependencies >> Resources & Schedule >> Prototype Availability >> >> Following review and approval of the 1-pager, I would expect to see a >> Requirements Document that describes all the features/functionality that >> we will include in the product, so we can agree on expectations and >> begin work. What is the deadline for producing drafts of these two basic >> documents for Indiana? > > Ok, I think I see where the vision is going to hit a wall. There is > definitely a process disconnect between agile development and Solaris > development. > > In agile development, you begin with a list of simple requirements > without a detailed description of how you are going to get there. You > then rush straight to implementation. After implementation, you pass > back to customer for feedback at the soonest possible instance. You > then rush again for a period of time, (say 2 weeks) and kick out what > you have to the customer. Keep repeating indefinitely. > I think you have a slightly warped view of Agile development! As an Agile evangelist, I hate seeing words like "rush straight to implementation" and "kick out what you have to the customer". Done correctly, Agile processes are a very structured and customer focussed. > I really feel that if Indiana is to be what I think it should be, that > it needs to be implemented in an agile fashion. Let's just get > together a few like minded people, put together a short proposal for > autonomy and run with the ball. (No ARC, no OGB after the initial > project is OKed to fit under the OpenSOlaris.org umbrella). > I do agree that OpenSolaris would benefit from a more agile approach.
Ian _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
