Comments on: EPF – Failing grade on collaboration

By: Jura Z6 review

Jura Z6 review — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:23:33 +0000

Nice contribution. I don’t quite agree with every thing you’ve went over, but you surely have some fine points in there.

By: Stanford Tierce

Stanford Tierce — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:17:00 +0000

Thanks for this nice article. I found it with yahoo and i find it very interesting. i will look for more interesting new articles at this website.

By: Nolan Khalid

Nolan Khalid — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:12:54 +0000

hello this blog entry was very interesting and funny for me. But it was really hard to find it with google.com. Maybe you should improve it with seo plugins for wordpress like headspace2. Just a tip (=

By: rumf

rumf — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:38:52 +0000

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

fool — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:38:04 +0000

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.