Spring Semester 1997
software analyses and metrics.
We'll cover the role of analyses and metrics both in prediction (e.g. cost estimation) and management (e.g. quality assurance). Happily, information on this topic, both local and on the web, abounds.
[I've now compiled a bibliography of the papers covered this semester. --RD]
Jim Tomayko teaches a course in software management, whose bibliography contains several papers that we are covering.
Jim Rozum, a member of the SEI, is teaching a course on process metrics.
Reiner Dumke has assembled a bibliography on software metrics.
(more to come)
Supplemental readings. When the canonical papers on a topic are too difficult to fathom without some addition help, supplemental readings can do the trick. In particular, since the meetings work best when the participants walk in well informed, discussion leaders shouldn't aim to help the papers make sense in hindsight based on discussion. If the best papers need some support, supplimental readings can clear up confusion before the meeting.
Meeting material. Discussion leaders are encouraged to produce materials for the meeting, like slides and handouts, to help clarify the topic. To get the most milage from these materials, they should be included in the web stie. Either the TOM server or Rob DeLine can help make the materials consumable from the web.
Other material. This section should serve those who want to know more about the topic. Useful sources of information to list here include external web sites on the topic (hopefully along with a one- or two-sentence description of what the site contains) and books and articles that, although good, were not chosen for the readings.
Notable remarks. For each meeting a scribe is chosen to capture the interesting nuggets of what is said. The result is recorded in this section. Of course, perfect quotes should not be expected, and participants are free to have their quotes edited or removed.
Post mortem. This section captures what was learned about the topic and provides input to our on-going discussion of what should be included in a PhD-level elective course. At bare minimum, it should include a review of each of the papers, both from the researcher's and educator's point-of-view. More ambitiously, each participant is encouranged to contribute his/her own two cents' worth, via email, to this section.