Tuesday 26th August, 2008

Time: c. 2:30PM - 3:45PM.
Location: Kathleen Keogh's Office, University of Ballarat, Mt. Helen Campus.
Chair: Ben Daniel.
Minute-Taker: Marcus Kirkpatrick.

Attendees (Required): Ben Daniel, Kourosh Kakhi, Marcus Kirkpatrick, Dean Perkins, Kate Perry and James Romeril.
Attendees (Optional): Sandra Herbert (Supervisor).
Absentees: Sandra Herbert (Supervisor).

Supervisor(s): Kathleen Keogh.
Client: N/A

Next Meeting: Thursday 28th August, 2008.
Time: 1:30PM.
Location: TBA

Agenda:
1. Status Reports from all Team Members
2. Supervisor Feedback / Comments (Sandra Herbert)
3. Project Scope Increase
4. Other Business

Discussed Items:
1. Status Reports from all Team Members
- It was agreed that the scope increase was a more pressing issue, therefore this item could be skipped for today.
- Timesheets will instead be used as Status Reports.

2. Supervisor Feedback / Comments (Sandra Herbert)
- It was agreed that the scope increase was a more pressing issue, therefore this item could be skipped for today.

3. Project Scope Increase
- Team E advised Kathleen that we do not believe we can increase the scope of the project for the following reasons:
> Current estimations indicate that an increase in the project scope would take, at the very least, an additional 4 weeks to complete;
> The client, Cherie Brown, does not necessarily want the scope of the project to be increased as she is happy with the project as it is;
> Dean advised Kathleen that he, and other team members, are doing 2-3 other subjects this semester - each with multiple assignments - therefore, increasing the scope in this subject would be unrealistic and may result in the failure of other subjects; and
> If scope were to be increased, then documention from CP783 would need to be re-written to reflect the changes, and the client would have to sign off on it.

- Kathleen advised the following:
> An extension to the subject, to accomodate an increased scope, can be negotiated;
> Increasing the scope does not necessarily require the modification of existing documentation, producing new documents, that solely reflect the changed scope, can instead be produced;
> The subject requires a 10-hour commitment per week, that needs to be reflected in timesheets;
o This IS currently the case - however, Kathleen contended that we are still required to do more.
> Without increasing the scope, the best the project team can hope for, is a 'pass' for the unit;
> Kathleen advisd that the concerns made regarding the project scope were made this semester, not the last semester; and
> Currently, the scope, and work involved in our project, is not comparable to those of other groups.

- Team E raised the following concerns:
> Why should we have to increase the scope of the project, when the 'problem' hasn't been identified by the CP783/CP784 staff after a full semester (CP783), and an additional 4-5 weeks?
> Team E also argued that the following should also be taken into account:
o We have had ALL of our documents signed off by both supervisors and the client;
o The supervisors whom raised this issue of an innapropriate scope, and Kathleen, approved the scope of the project in CP783 when they reviewed our project documentation, including the SRS and SPMP, which fully identified the scope of the project and the work that is to be undertaken;
* Kathleen advised that the time she took off to attend conferences, and her 'unfamiliarity' with Joomla! may have impacted upon her decison, as she was not fully aware of what the scope was.
* Team E advised Kathleen that they had fully explained Joomla! and how it would be utilised by the project team in their presentation which they made in CP783. Kathleen attended this presentation and did not raise any concerns, rather the group received a high mark.
> Team E did not have any scope-related concerns raised in CP783 by Kathleen or their supervisor; and
> Team E is currently on their third and fourth supervisors, which makes our project environment fairly unstable. They were / are:
o William Harvey;
o Scott Hebbard;
o Sandra Herbert (current); and
o Kathleen Keogh (current).
> The group also advised that whilst, compared to other teams, our coding may be lesser, it is more than likely our user documentation will be a lot more detailed and is a primary focus of our scope.
o Kathleen acknowledged this, but didn't elaborate further.

- Kathleen didn't necessarily address each of these concerns, rather she pointed out, that in order to get a 'pass' in this subject the scope has to be increased.

- Team E were forced to agree that they realised what had to be done:
> Ben: Agreed that the scope needed to be increased, but still had concerns;
> Kourosh: Agreed that the scope needed to be increased.
> Marcus: Agreed that the scope needed to be increased, but still had concerns;
> Dean: Agreed that the scope needed to be increased, but still had concerns;
> Kate: Agreed that the scope needed to be increased, but still had concerns;
> James: Agreed that the scope needed to be increased, but pointed out that the coding is by no means minimal - the template will require at least several hundred lines of code.

4. Other Business
- There was nothing else that could be brought forward.

Other:
- The group needs to think of a scope increase before the end of the week - Friday 29th August, 2008 - and forward it to Kathleen via e-mail for approval.
- Kathleen also requires an approximation of hours to be spent on the project.