Skip to content

Clarify Intent of Project

Problem Statement

  • There exists ambiguity regarding what the purpose of this project is
  • Is this an effort to improve some open source project?
  • Is this an effort to incorporate some open source project?
  • What, fundamentally, is the intent?
  • Per details in the syllabus... (Bold sections indicate ambiguity)
  • More clarity onto expectations of contributions are required.
  • Justification of why 12 issues (2.4 issues per team member) desired, as opposed to selection of 1-2 issues on the open source project's own issue tracker
  • This especially applies to addressing the requirement "only issues that directly advance the project" and underlying ambiguity
  • Additional requirements/expectations of system may also be desired
  • There currently exists a major split in issues regarding improving EvaP or making modifications

The Syllabus

  • Explain the impact openness has on open source software products, processes, and business models
  • Discuss particular examples of social impact achieved by HFOSS projects
  • Assess the health of an open source project
  • Interact with an HFOSS project community in a way that demonstrates understanding of the project’s communication and control mechanisms
  • Complete the steps needed to contribute to one particular HFOSS project including tool use and process steps

Who will benefit?

  • Team Members: Clarity of intended outcome will guide issues creation and task management
  • EvaP Team: Clarity on what direction Team-Blue is taking

Benefits and risks

  • Risk: May slow project down
  • Benefit: More obvious goals

Proposed solution

  • Ask Course Instructor for Feedback regarding Design Notes (OneNote) for an Evaluation System
  • Schedule time with Course Instructor to cover intention of project and current status

Deliverable

  • New pages in OneNote regarding final product design
  • Changes to Contribution Guidelines on which task types to pursue

Priority/Severity

  • High (This will bring a huge increase in performance/productivity/usability/legislative cover)
  • Medium (This will bring a good increase in performance/productivity/usability)
  • Low (anything else e.g., trivial, minor improvements)