RE: Beginning of Project Plan for TP

[Rachel Foerster <rachelf@ix.netcom.com>]

Just a quick response to your comments about the ebXMl Glossary and
which PT owns it.....it is owned by the TechArchitecture team and
there have been several versions released to the TA PT for
review....the latest being today.

Rachel

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Hendry [mailto:Anne.Hendry@eng.sun.com]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 4:02 PM
To: annabelle.bullen@us.pwcglobal.com; bullen@gateway.net
Cc: ebxml-project@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Beginning of Project Plan for TP


Hi Ann,

I see that last night's mail didn't have the attachment,
so I'm forwarding again.  I haven't worked on it any
more yet today - probably will do more tonight, but
this should be enough to give to your person to see
if it can be easily transfered into a spreadsheet.
It should, since this doesn't yet have dependencies,
or any complex entries.  I still have to verify this
against the last mail that went out from Marty/Chris,
but they will be discussing this at Tokyo.

I entered some of the Projects and Activities.
I say 'some' because as soon as you start to enter these
it becomes clear that there needs to be a lot more detail.

However, even with these few items, there are a couple of
things that have come up that could be addressed.

1) Everyone is in need of an up-to-date glossary.
   Marty Sachs spent several weeks looking for the
   keeper of the official glossary.  I'm not sure
   where he found the version he got last week,
   but that's what we're working off of in TP now.
   Chris Ferris would like to pull together a BOF to try
   to nail down terminology, since namespace collisions
   are becoming more frequent now that the teams are
   putting their work together.  So the question is
   who should own the glossary.  TP doesn't seem like
   the most reasonable group, but it affects them quite
   a bit and a lot of the terminology discussions have
   been taking place around TP definitions.  Who should
   own the glossary?

2) This schedule works back from Vancouver.  The final
   deliverables are fairly well-known, but the driving
   factor is the PoC requirement.  QR eats into the
   time people have to develop before giving to PoC.
   Can the process be streamlined?  Officially I think
   things still need to go to QR before PoC, but it
   doesn't seem realistic with the schedule everyone
   is trying to meet.  So people are submitting to QR
   unofficially to get a signoff to give to PoC.
   Should this be formalized so that it doesn't have
   to be done 'under the covers'?  Perhaps there should
   be 2 types of QR review - one for PoC and another for
   release to the public?  I dont' think there's anything
   formalized about that yet.

3) TRP has a dependency on TP, but I can't put that in
   without knowing what the TRP dependency is.  Even then,
   I'm not sure how you want us to link up the inter-team
   dependencies.  We should talk about that.

4) As I mentioned, in regards to use of Microsoft Project,
   it's about 60%/40% against, since some people don't have
   the software and others don't have the experience.
   Then others don't have the time, even if they have
   both of the above.  So try to get this into a spreadsheet
   and let me know how it goes.  It should be very straight-forward
   since there is no linking or anything in this yet - it's just a
list.
   I'll be putting more info into it tomorrow, and as we go.

and ...

5) It's hard to assign resources to the various tasks,
   because in this environment the entire team works on
   the tasks, or at the least, a sub-team.  So assigning
   resources is a bit different, since it is a rotating
   team as well and you can't count on one person staying
   with it the entire time.  We'll have to discuss this
   - how to define the resources.

-Anne