Dacopan project MEETING MINUTES
Feb 24th, 2004
Meeting
Feb 24th, 2004, at 16:15
Department of Computer Science
Attendance
Alejandro Fernandez Rey
Carlos Arrastia Aparicio
Vesa Vainio
Jarkko Laine, secretary
Jonathan Brown, chairman
Jari Aarniala
Absent
None
1. Start
Mr. Brown started the meeting at 16:24.
2. Assessment of the situation
- The project is a little behind schedule
- This was the day for the weekly project review
3. Discussion
3-A PROJECT REVIEW
- The discussion was started with the project review in
which the current state of the project was briefly
reviewed and possible solutions for problems were discussed.
- Risks:
* Schedule isn't met:
The solution offered to solve this risk by the project
plan was to drop some parts of the project. It was
still decided that the schedule problems at the moment
are so small that there is no need for such actions at
the moment.
* Communication problems:
There are some problems in the communication between the
two groups in Helsinki and Petrozavodsk. Solutions
discussed for this problem were:
. to have more threads in the forum instead of having
all communication in just a couple of them.
. to create new forum sections for each document being
written.
. to use bold subtitles and keypoint in messages to
make it easier to just skim through the key points.
It was decided that all these actions should be incorporated
as a "new forum policy".
* It was also pointed out that it is important that when
a person comments on ideas presented by others, if he
objects what is presented he should make it clear, why he
doesn't agree on the suggestion and give a new suggestion.
* Other risks were considered irrelevant at the moment.
- It was stated that the next deadline in the project should be
finishing the requirements specification. The date that the
Helsinki group will suggest to the other group was decided later
in the meeting to be Monday, March 1st.
- No one was feeling that he had too much work to do.
3-B Project plan
- It was said that the Petrozavodsk group wants the other group
to create a more specific local schedule than currently exists. This
was decided to be an action point that we should do after finishing
the requirements specification.
- Mr. Vainio suggested that in the schedule we should have some
buffer time for reading and commenting on other group's work
before every deadline. An appropriate amount of time for this
was thought to be about two days. This was decided to be added to
the project plan later if the other group accepts the idea.
3-C CVS
- Mr. Vainio suggested that no DIA files should be linked to the
LaTeX files in the CVS. It was decided that if it is fine with
the Petrozavodsk team, the DIA files will be stored in the
repository but there will also always have to be the same images
in EPS format in there. The figures that are linked to the
TEX documents should always be the ones in EPS format, so that
compiling the documents would also be possible on Windows
platform.
3-C Requirements specification
- It was pointed out by Mr. Vainio, that there probably will be
two different file formats used by the animator: the intermediate
file created by the analyzer and a scenario file format.
- He also said that it should be clear that the notes and breakpoints
can be edited inside the animator.
- He proposed that the text "level of detail" should be changed
to "selected set of variables" in the requirements specification.
- A new structure suggestion for the requirements specification
document was decided. [Appendix 1]
- A rough status review for the document was made and then
some tasks for finishing the document were divided.
- It was decided that the Helsinki group will suggest as a deadline
Monday, March 1st 20:00 meaning that by that time everyone should
have commited their work to the CVS repository.
- After that time Mr. Laine will combine the different parts and create
a final version of the document and publish it on the web site and
by sending it to Mr. Kojo.
- The formal review with the customer can take place either on
Thursday March 4th or Friday March 5th.
4. Action points
- Mr. Brown:
* User requirements
* Animator requirements
* Communication with Petrozavodsk:
. Problem domain status
. Analyzer requirements status
. Suggest the new deadline
. Ask about non-functional requirements and
high level architecture sections
- Mr. Arrastia:
* Re-organize the forum
* Introduction
* Use cases
- Mr. Fernandez:
* Scenarios
* Variable list
- Mr. Aarniala:
* User requirements
* Animator requirements
- Mr. Vainio:
* Suggest dates for the review to Mr. Kojo
* Animator requirements
- Mr. Laine:
* Organize the requirements specification document
and inform everyone about the changes
* Publish the document once it is finished
* Bring the latest versions of the document to
every meeting from now on
* System requirements description
5. End
Mr. Brown ended the meeting at 18:26.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX 1: The suggested organization of the Requirements specification
document, the status of it and action points.
Section % done Actor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction 0 Carlos
2. User requirements 50 Jari + Jonathan
3. Problem domain 90 Jonathan (will ask for status)
4. Scenarios with variables 99 Alex
- Variable list 0 Alex
5. Use cases 75 Carlos
6. System requirements (desc) 0 Jarkko
- Analyzer 90 Jonathan (will ask for status)
- Animator 50 Vesa + Jari + Jonathan
7. Non-functional requirements 0 Petrozavodsk ? (Jonathan will ask)
8. High level architecture 0 Petrozavodsk ? (Jonathan will ask)
- "File format issues" Vesa
Organizing the document to this format was decided to be a task for
Jarkko.
Back to DaCoPAnDocumentation