Re: "Pseudo-DIA" between the Linux Kernel Development Community and its Users
Regarding the “template of a suitable Pseudo-DIA”, I think we need to ensure that Jochen’s columns (“the template”) covers my five points:
a. a specification of the scope, i.e., the development of an item or element
b. a definition of two parties involved in the development of that scope
c. description of activities
d. assignment of activities to each party,
e. evidences that the assignment meets the actual reality of executed activities among the two parties
f. description of resulting evidence or work products that need to be created by one party and provided as input to the other party for further activity.
I believe a. and b. can be generally covered and does not need a further column.
From my memory on Management Aspects, one proposal could be to split:
“Observed Execution of Linux Kernel” can be split into “Activity executed by Linux Kernel Development Community”; “Evidences from that execution”; “Activity needed to be covered by the User”; “Interface (artefacts) between Community and User”.
I think we need to agree on suitable column names for that and we could then adjust the tables accordingly. Jochen, Kate and I can try to figure this out for the Management Aspects.
Von: Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...>
Thanks to all for your inputs and feedback.
Lukas - can you put together a template DIA based on these conclusions, and store in Google docs?
It would be good to see a list of specific responsibilities for each party (Linux developer vs "user"), going beyond the definitions already discussed.
development-process@... <development-process@...> on behalf of John MacGregor via lists.elisa.tech <john.macgregor=de.bosch.com@...>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: development-process@... <development-
> process@...> On Behalf Of Lukas Bulwahn
> Sent: Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2020 15:24
> To: development-process@...
> Subject: Re: [development-process] "Pseudo-DIA" between the Linux Kernel
> Development Community and its Users
> The quick question after the meeting today:
> Where is more explanation needed?
> More explanation on the abstract description of the concept of a "Pseudo DIA"
> (maybe someone has a better word?)?
> Or should I provide some more examples of potential activities, how they may be
> described as split between the two organizations, and how the overall argumentation
> of fulfilling a procedural requirement can be described in such a way where the
> activities are split among Kernel Community and User?
> Do you have some specific process step in mind that might serve as a good
> example? I am happy to pick those suggestions and try to describe that as a
> Pseudo-DIA example.