Changes between Version 5 and Version 6 of NDGRoom101Meeting

28/08/08 15:25:01 (12 years ago)



  • NDGRoom101Meeting

    v5 v6  
    33Meeting to remind ourselves of what we have, why, & what we have learned along the way. 
     5Held in CR03 on Friday 22 August 2008. 
     7== Attendees == 
     8 * Sam Pepler 
     9 * Dom Lowe 
     10 * Phil Kershaw 
     11 * Steve Donegan 
     12 * Kevin Marsh 
     13 * Bryan Lawrence 
     14 * Stephen Pascoe 
     15 * Matt Pritchard 
     16 * Calum Byrom (by phone) 
    518== Intro from Matt == 
    6174== Sum up == 
     77= Notes from Meeting = 
     78''I have tried to attribute comments to people where my notes captured this. Please read and amend as  necessary. Where my own interpretation of my notes has been added post-hoc, this is indicated in italics''. 
     80== Review of Development Approach == 
     81(BL) NDG wasn't [''necessarily intended to be''] a software development project at the start. As such, it didn't have very clear requirements at the start. We had to "do" the buzzwords in order to "do" e-science as far as funding was concerned. 
     83How to roll out deployments : we are still asking questions now as to how we integrate security into BADC. Could it be done in smaller chunks or do we have to wait until a whole chunk is ready before attempting deployment? 
     85(Sam) Initially there was a "do everything" approach ''[i.e. see which things were successull to aid in narrowing down candidate technologies for solving certain problems?]'' 
     87(Stephen) Learned about modular software development, but 
     88(Bryan) at the time, there were no partners actually signed up to implementing [''specific components'']. It seemed that everyone was waiting for a complete system. 
     90In order to make things better implementable [''do we mean deployable?''], things need to be in smaller chunks and this needs to be done all along. 
     92Why didn't this happen? 
     93 * Lost people at certain institutions (esp. key ones with link to Data Centres)  
     94 * Had "services" but no [''p??? ...sorry can't read my own notes''] to start with 
     96Was there a timetable for implementing these things? 
     97 * Comes down to tightly-defined requirements, or lack of. 
     99Example : CSML 
     100 * (Dom) Suffers from being at the end of the data delivery chain. [''All other bits in chain need to be deployed in order for this to be tried out properly / generated useful feedback''] 
     101 * (Matt) Should timetable for deployments be tailored to position in data chain? 
     104NDG development seemed to have a very adaptive approach, with a basic idea of what it wanted to do. This maps well onto the agile software development approach (cf. predictive where everything is very well planned out from the start). 
     105 * Good because not too much time is spent down dead ends 
     106 * But relies on very good communication between all involved 
     108 Maybe there was some attempt to be predictive in some parts of the project (bits of project were agile, bits predictive). But there was not enough attention to the relative '''pace''' of the different development streams. 
     110 RM-ODP model