Basie Blog

As most of you now know, I’m in a somewhat unique position where I have to meet the requirements of a course here at MUN through my work on Basie. I sat down with my local Prof and we came up with a grading scheme that will satisfy the requirements for this course as well as accurately represent my work on Basie in the way that the majority of you are being graded. This makes things a little more complicated for Ian and I, but I believe that Ian should be able to be graded based on the Team Calendar grading scheme without having to worry about my specific requirements. Without further ado, here is what we came up with:

Process “document” – 15% (individual)
-an examination of the differences between the project management process and traditional project management elements of a software project. This will also identify how the end product can be evaluated(validated and verified) in terms of its intended purpose. Includes critique of the current process we use for Basie. This is the document I have been working on, and am in the process of revising based on feedback from the rest of the team. This will be especially useful for determining how the end product matches the requirements.

Requirements artifacts – 10% (team)
collection of blogs, documents, diagrams, discussions, etc that describe the intended outcomes of the process. I have been receiving help from the team on this one as well, they have pointed me to blogs and discussions and given me their views on how our requirements are decided.

System Demonstration – 25%
(self-explanatory)

Architecture Document – 15% (team)
We decided that this would describe how Basie works in terms of the already existing django architecture.

Module Section (individual)
This is broken into two components:
-Performance Evaluation: We decided this would be a good place to use what Bill proposed on the Basie blog. At this point I imagine it would be more appropriate to use Ian’s scheme mentioned above since we are team Calendar, but the two are similar enough. The idea is that my scheme contains at least something that everybody elses does. – 15%

-Product: code and description of code (maybe class diagrams , etc) – 20%

So there is my scheme. The weights associated may seem arbitrary but they were chosen to line up with the requirements of my course here. If anybody is interested the course outline can be found in this doucument: Undergraduate Handbook (course number 4770.) I would be interested to see if any other students taking UCOSP are in the same scenario as me where they have to meet specific requirements for a course that are set before they have to decide their own grading scheme for UCOSP. It was a bit challenging to do this, but it was definitely a good learning experience for us. I imagine we all had difficulties coming up with our scheme, after all, having a grading scheme handed to us on a silver platter is just one luxury we have as students : )