Comments on: EPF – Failing grade on collaboration http://www.osellus.com/blogs/2008/01/02/epf-%e2%80%93-failing-grade-on-collaboration/ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:11:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: rumf http://www.osellus.com/blogs/2008/01/02/epf-%e2%80%93-failing-grade-on-collaboration/comment-page-1/#comment-431 rumf Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:38:52 +0000 http://www.osellus.com/blogs/2008/01/02/epf-%e2%80%93-failing-grade-on-collaboration/#comment-431 A thought... what keeps you from publishing your own content distinct from the eclipse sanction methods? If the eclipse community is not sufficiently flexible - create your own wiki tracking user contributed methods. Calling the project a failure seems extreme. A thought… what keeps you from publishing your own content distinct from the eclipse sanction methods?

If the eclipse community is not sufficiently flexible - create your own wiki tracking user contributed methods.

Calling the project a failure seems extreme.

]]> By: fool http://www.osellus.com/blogs/2008/01/02/epf-%e2%80%93-failing-grade-on-collaboration/comment-page-1/#comment-394 fool Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:38:04 +0000 http://www.osellus.com/blogs/2008/01/02/epf-%e2%80%93-failing-grade-on-collaboration/#comment-394 Kamal, I have read some of your posts on the EPF newsgroup and am in agreement with them - specifically the posts on enactment/instantiation. However this post of yours declaring the entire project to be a failure because it takes 2-3 months for new process elements to be approved and incorporated is quite off the top. It would be quite horrendous to have hundreds of process variants out there. By definition, process that we would want created and published would be ones that have been developed from learnings gathered over many projects. Processes are similar to good patterns. It is useless to have hundreds of patterns. What we need are few well thought out patterns or processes that incorporate knowledge that has been elicited from vast experience. It is unlikely that EPF will die abruptly, because it is an open source (lite) version of a commercial product from IBM - Rational Method Composer. Kamal, I have read some of your posts on the EPF newsgroup and am in agreement with them - specifically the posts on enactment/instantiation.

However this post of yours declaring the entire project to be a failure because it takes 2-3 months for new process elements to be approved and incorporated is quite off the top.

It would be quite horrendous to have hundreds of process variants out there. By definition, process that we would want created and published would be ones that have been developed from learnings gathered over many projects. Processes are similar to good patterns. It is useless to have hundreds of patterns. What we need are few well thought out patterns or processes that incorporate knowledge that has been elicited from vast experience.

It is unlikely that EPF will die abruptly, because it is an open source (lite) version of a commercial product from IBM - Rational Method Composer.

]]>