|
|
|
1. Name
|
| | Derek Sessions |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Sohum Misra |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Corey Shaw |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Brad Dodson |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Yuan Gao |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Hubert Lee |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Rae Alty |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Aaron Cottle |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Dave Eng |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Felipe Serrano |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Matt Freeburg |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Kevin Le |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Jeeyun Lim |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
Total: 13 |
2. Percentage complete
|
| | 90% |
| | | 3 (23%) | |
|
|
| | 70% |
| | | 2 (15%) | |
|
|
| | 0% |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | 75% |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | 80% |
| | | 2 (15%) | |
|
|
| | 60% |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | 25% |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | 10% |
| | | 2 (15%) | |
|
|
Total: 13 |
3. What milestone objectives were actually attained? Be specific!
|
| | My milestone is here under Search/Navigation.
The sorting stucture is completed, to a degree. The strucutre appears in code as the SortParameter class (it's poorly named for now) and functions as follows:
A SortParameter definies two things: the type of search and what to sort by. The type of search can either be a local, global, or mixed search, and the parameters are definied in another enclosed structure and a list of these are kept to determine ordering. Each sort item contains two pieces of information: the thing to sort by (such as CreationDate, Name, Rank, etc.) and whether to do Ascending or Descending order. This information will be passed along during a search request. However, this structure is unused and untested (currently), so I cannot consider it complete.
The ranking process has been created, named ContentAppraiser. It currently works in the following way:
A content appariser can be created and then started. From there, you use the original object to add items to the queue to be processed. A background thread, created when the start is requested, continuously works through the queue and ranks each item in it. You can request the system to stop via a provided method, which will let the thread finish any task it is in the process of and then exit (i.e. return from its method). This code is not yet used (since the backend dosen't quite have a way to save the ranking) and is untested, so still might need some work. Mutexs are used to protect the variables that operate between threads.
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | My team milestone objectives can be found here. My personal milestones can be found here.
Team Milestones
- Communicated with customer along with Matt and Jeeyun about the business model over lunch. He also sent us a document outlining these details.
- Updated the theme and themed the other pages of the website that were previously unthemed. As far as I am aware, all ASPX pages that were created have been themed.
Personal Milestones
- Brainstorm logos--this is a task I created and delegated to Jeeyun. The customer wants to have a logo asap so it can be trademarked and such.
- Theme content and authoring pages--this was done. These pages are still not fully functional.
- Make silverlight video player more flexible--no progress. I didn't get time to do this. Although I expanded the view for content, which definitely made the video player more viewable.
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | You might think that 0% completion would leave this box empty, but we actually did do some things despite the people we depended on hanging us out to dry. These were:
- We adjusted to the new team and completed the transition, learning about the purpose and objectives of the team
- We had a few meetings with other people which helped define some of the relationships, how they would be stored and accessed
- We wrote some code that guesses on the Backend query interface, but it's commented out because that interface is accessible. Hopefully the code will be a decent starting point when we actually receive the interface...
So we actually did do some stuff, but it was about as much as could be done, and doesn't really qualify as hard, concrete results. |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | First of all my, goals for the week were (and enough with empty promises, this week matt will post my milestones I believe):
- Ensure that the last (and really most critical piece) of the system: the relationship/value model, had productive movement.
- Create a more cooperative group environment. Eliminate isolation so that people are moving with the project and carrying it forward.
- Move the team towards a more big-picture view of the system, so that we can have a better view of what's done and what's still to come.
- Assuage the customer that we are becoming a better team and being more productive.
- Also I need to produce a few concrete things for the customer: an updated copy of the chart (printed out), and a new view of the project architecture (although not specifically requested, I believe it will help tremendously).
Of these, I think we made progress on all, but with caveats:
- I worked really hard to see this make headway last week. This included reading lots and lots about RDF/SPARQL, downloading and picking through a couple of c# implementations, talking to kevin about how rdf/sparql can fit with our relationships, and then talking everyone else's ear off about how the system is going to work. The whole thing galvanized friday after class as we made a lot of decisions, got everyone on the same page pretty much and decided enough to really move forward (especially from the backend perspective). A few hiccups came up over the weekend, see the next box.
- Matt and I are working really hard to make sure everyone has a place and is contributing. This is an ongoing process, but basically I see the goal as ensuring that everyone will be able to point to this at the end and say "I did that."
- This is not really too far along, but I think Friday's meeting helped. Also, unfortunately really, the customer meeting helped, as my discussion to the customer of how the system fits together also introduced some of the class to a number of the pieces (sorry felipe).
- In addition to improving practices, which is a very real thing we are trying to do, it helped to stay after the meeting with Matt and Luke and just talk about team dynamics for a long time. I think I learned things, and I also think it went a long way to comforting him about what's going on.
- I've more or less got the chart up to date, which is really helpful in getting a big picture view of things (actually updating it is more helpful than having it really). The architecture is lagging (meaning, not done yet- probably later tonight though).
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Milestone can be found here
Bad link?
1. Remove "HTML" button and integrate Write.aspx to WebApp.
Now I use a link to switch between WYSIWYG editor and plain text editor.
2. Display embeded text/image content in WYSIWYG editor using Ajax. Embed image content are displayed as image, and now the text content is inserted to the editor
3. Display embeded content in Content.aspx page
I use regular expression to find "embed" tags and use placeholder control to add ImageControl and VideoControl.
4. Display domain name in hyperlinks
This part is done by regular expression
5. Remove unnecessary forms in table plugin window
5. Remove unnecessary forms in link plugin window |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Milestones can be found here.
These milestones have not been updated to reflect the changes to the database since the integration of relations though.
- Created a class representing a Sparql query statement, added basic functionality
- Created a class representing a query on the backend
- Created an interface for validating a Sparql query
- Added comparison content enum
- Created an interface representing a member of a Sparql query
- Created concrete implementations of the interface
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Assigned milestones in "Additional Comments"
G1: Derek "finalized" the ordering criteria implementation (at least, as finalized as we can see at the moment). I'm not certain how to "test" it without having the other pieces (translation in to Statements by the Relationships and processing of Statements as SPARQL queries by the backend.) I also created a document that has examples of search trees. Examples of Search Trees contains graphs of specific example queries, along with how to create said trees and what they would translate into as far as Statements.
G4: Derek accomplished the fourth group task.
P1: I did create the Search Specification and
Search Usage Guide, and have updates the specification as the tree design has changed to allow for relationship searching.
P2: With help from Aaron, we have redesigned the trees to allow for searching relationships. This new design is now in the specification stated above. It has been implemented into the main branch now, but the translating to statements is still under construction by the Relationship team. I spoke to them, and Corey seemed to feel he could get it done in time.
P3: This is part of G1, and was accomplish as specified above. |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | The backend team's milestone this week was, essentially, to implement SPARQL parsing. The milestone on the "Team Milestones" list essentially says exactly that in more words, so I'll break it down a little:
- I needed to work with the rest of my team to develop the interface and architecture.
- I then was responsible for writing the actual method which generated the SQL. Hubert and Matt implemented the fairly large data structure we needed to provide information to my method.
"The ability to persist search ranking data from background processes" was also a task for me.
I met extensively with both my team and the class to hammer out an interface. There is still debate on what it should be, but we decided on what it should be for this week, knowing it might change a bit later.
I implemented the search method. It is pretty untested, and probably buggy, but it does exist in a fully-functional form (and compiles, even!).
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | I'm a little more optimistic than Corey, so I'll say 25% seeing as we've made progress on a lot of fronts, and have a lot of groundwork laid out. That being said, there are several causes for the incompleteness of this milestone. A large part of this is the discrepancy between our assigned milestone, and the deliverables that we needed to get out. Unfortunately, deliverables came late (again), and we found ourselves pressured to get everything done starting on Sunday.
The actual milestone objectives can be found here, under Relationships Group
Non-Milestone:
-I sat down with Matt, Sohum, and Aaron, got Derek on the phone and Rae over AIM, and we fixed the non-building main branch. It builds now which is GOOD. Not a milestone, but still important.
Deliverables:
-The Abstract Search Tree is supposed to be coded, tested, and running. This did not happen, although the stub code for the interface is there.
-The Value System is being mapped out by Kevin. I gave him and explained to him what notes that I had, along with answering a few questions from what I knew today (Tuesday). Hopefully we'll be able to see at least a draft tomorrow.
-The interface between the backend and the relationship model is coded...kind of. Since the interfaces aren't yet up on the backend, the code we have is untested and commented out so that it doesn't break the build. Testing shall be forthcoming, as soon as Matt/Aaron check in their changes to the backend.
Milestone:
NOTE that for all things not done here, I will explain in greater detail in the next section.
-Work with backend as the standard for storing relationship data in the database gets finalized. In particular settle the interface to add new relationships (triples). This is done. Yay! We sat down on Friday, and had a meeting at 3:00. It was rather productive (unfortunately after everyone left), and we got a lot of stuff settled down. Matt was able to get a contract for the backend interface to us, and we have integrated it into the code. It's not tested for reasons stated above, but yeah.
Create an interface to create and query for comments. Eh...not done. By our design, this cannot be completed (or should not) until we get our main abstract method up and tested.
Determine how you will integrate with abstract search trees and translate them into SPARQLish queries. - The actual code has yet to be planned here.
Demonstrate the creation of tags, comments, ratings, and trust relationships. - No chance.
Create an interface to create and query for tags, including spatial data about tags, stored as properties in the relationship model. - This particular interface has not been completed yet.
Finish a specification for algorithms traversing the relationship model for valuation. -As stated previously, Kevin is working on this, and should hopefully have a good deal of planning written out. We'll see tomorrow - Corey's talking to him and should have a better idea on this.
Create an interface for rating content, comments, etc. - Same as before. Not done, dependent on our main abstract method. |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | I merged the conversion code into the Skynet 3 branch.
And I assigned to Yuan the most important milestone for this week so that we can show something nice to the customer.
Besides that, I didn't get much done... |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | My tasks were to:
- Meet with Aaron and Hubert to hash out the details of how backend's relation-based searching would work, and create an interface to provide to Relations team
- Implement the methods in IQueryValidator interface in both Statement and BackendQuery
- Create an abstract class QueryValidator that implemented those methods and then have Statement and BackendQuery inherit from that
- Add GetWithVariable, GetNoVariable, and GetAllVariableNames to IQueryValidator interface and implement them in QueryValidator
- Several bug fixes in Statement, BackendQuery, IQueryValidator, and QueryValidator |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| |
- I wrote a tentative document describing our value system in very plainspeak. The document details the purpose of the system, and a simple description of possible factors to be used in calculating value for people and content. It does not describe the algorithms that will be used to determine value.
- Attended joint backend relationship team meetings to both educate new members to the team (like myself) about RDF and Sparql, as well as agree on certain standards (like treating comments as another kind of relationship) for working with relationships.
- Made a "wishlist" of interface methods we believe the relationship team will require.
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | These were my milestones for this week: milestones.
- I just joined the UI team this week and started working with Sohum.
- I have come up with two logos but since we have decided to have a logo contest I didn't make more and the ones I have are rough drafts
- I have made a dataflow diagram of the user's experience on website |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
Total: 13 |
4. What milestone items were left uncompleted? Be specific!
|
| | Both items were completed, but remain untested and may (read "most likely will") require more work. And testing...
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | - Develop profile page. I started work on this and hopefully should be able to get more work done over the next few days. Did not get in touch with authoring team regarding this exactly.
- Demo the theme with real users--deferred because the theme is changing and the functionality allowing for a demo is missing.
- Dataflow diagram--still pending. I understand Jeeyun has been a little busy with other classes so it's okay since this isn't of high priority.
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | - We were unable to actually have code that creates and queries relationship information from the backend, because the interface that was provided (and still is at the time of the writing of this journal) is inconsistent in places, and is not fully public. This means that even attempting to write code for this would break the tree.
- We were not given the documentation for the abstract search trees by Rae until late last night, and one day is not a fair amount of time to even wrap our heads around the concepts presented, much less implement something that can turn those trees into calls to the Backend for which the interface isn't even finalized yet.
- We sort of have an interface set up, for those wishing to make calls to our code, but since it's all stubs, there's no way to try using it and see if it is intuitive. I have a feeling it's going to change anyway when the Backend gets torn apart.
- Getting a concept for the value system was also dropped on us, but none of us have a good idea what it is. I assigned Kevin to work on it, but it came at a bad time for him as he had a COMP 320 assignment also due today.
please don't underestimate Dave as a resource for this -brad |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| |
- Well we have an interface. There was some confusion about a lot of things. I had done a detailed examination of the c# implementation I picked through and sent the results to the backend, but apparently they didn't read it. As a result, our implementation will at least at first lack a number of rather central RDF/Sparql features. On the other hand, these can/are already implemeted in other ways, and perhaps more efficiently, in our system. Sunday was a worrisome day for me, as further misunderstandings showed themselves, and I became downright afraid of the performance numbers we might get out of the system. For now I think we're going with a hybrid approach that uses an RDF-like-store to store what it's best at (relationship data) and normal SQL tables for everything else. At least that's what I think (on that note, I'm getting to the bottom of this right away).
- Clearly this is and will remain an ongoing endeavor. But I do have in mind some ways to give more concrete pieces to individuals.
- In many ways this is really incomplete. One thing I'm going to start doing is sending out semi-weekly "state of the project" reports which essentially aggregate the progress and decisions as I'm aware of them.
- Once again, ongoing, but really, really improved in my opinion.
- I'll get on that architecture diagram (at some point)
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | 1. The preview of Video content is not finished
Now video content is shown as image in WYSIWYG editor
2. The editor can't switch between "embed" tag and content.
Now it can transfer from content to "embed" tag, but it can't transfer back from "embed" tag to content |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | The backend implementation has changed a lot since we integrated relationships into the database. Many of our old database tables will need to be dropped and new ones will be added. Currently, everything still runs off the old tables. Once our team has finished with the changes to the backend, we will merge it with the trunk and allow others to run off the new code and tables. Among the changes that need to be made are how we query the database and the addition of stored procedures. |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | G2: The Relationship team was determined to be this "integration" between the abstract search trees and SPARQL. As a result, the full, detailed specification of how the interaction works (Statements and such) is pretty much the task of their team - thus this task is "differed".
G3: Derek and I discussed the desired form of this and such, and we are uncertain is we want the user to be able to literally type in anything such as AND OR and NOT, or symbols to represent such. The problem with doing such is that is removes the possibility of searching upon those names/symbols. We would like to wait and discuss this further.
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | I did not work on background processes this week. That's probably okay, as automating something that doesn't exist yet is sorta impossible. It'll happen eventually, though.
I would have done more testing, but not all of the code I was depending on existed soon enough.
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Everything, as of now, is incomplete.
Everything listed, that is.
WHY MILESTONES ARE NOT COMPLETED:
The sad answer to this is a simple lack of time. We got interfaces designed, and coded up. That was fairly easy, and we have been meeting a lot with backend as well as search. There's still unfortunately some issues that need to be gone over, but we'll get it soon (hopefully tomorrow). But truth be told, we got deliverables on Sunday, the design contract to the backend method on Sunday afternoon, the design specification for abstract search trees on Monday, and in between all of this a sick Corey and several midterms. I don't want to cop out and argue it all against time, but it seems to have been our largest contributing factor this week. On top of all of this, our design rests on a major abstract querying class which is yet untested, and has the majority of its code commented out. It would be folly to try to continue on without testing since a lot of the other code should look very similar to it. All in all, it comes down to this: we need more work done on backend. It seems absolutely crazy that we're redoing the backend almost completely right now, especially at this crunch point, but I can see the need for it. It's been a hard week, and this is the result I suppose.
OTHER INCOMPLETE ITEMS:
-The abstract tree parser is still just stub code (albeit now correct stub code so that Search can build properly). But this is somewhat to be expected, as we really only received a formal specification for what search trees are on Monday night. That being said, there was no formal interface planned either, but this was taken care of.
-All interfaces right now are in the form of stub code, with a lot of pending, untested code commented out. All of this really needs to be tested, but there's unfortunately no way of testing it since the interface in the main branch and the interface that we're supposed to be using are vastly different. Still waiting on Matt and Aaron to iron it out and get it working.
-Last I spoke with Kevin, he was working on the value system. Last I spoke with Corey, he doesn't know how far Kevin has progressed on it. I suppose I will find out tomorrow, but I really hope Kevin managed a great deal so we can show something at the customer meeting. Weekend communication I feel was really lacking, largely in part to Corey being sick, and all of us having to do everything for other classes as well. Being in transition, I don't feel that we (Corey, Kevin, and I) really functioned as a team until today.
-Webmail for me has been down since Tuesday afternoon and is still down.
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | I haven't had a chance to work on tagging at all, but I have the idea in my head.
In addition, I am about to start to work on distributing documentation assignments. |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | I would have liked to have done more testing, but there was a lot of other code that needed to be checked in first, so that will have to wait until after the milestone. (Um, this sounds like a very bad thing. Untested code shouldn't get checked-in. Interfaces are one thing, but for everything else, this is a bad bad idea. -brad) Our plan had to be adjusted at several points so that the original stub code we came up with wasn't enough to support the changes later on. |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| |
- No working methods yet to handle and query relationships.
- No specific definitions on how we are defining local and global trust.
- Did not collaborate with the search team to define our abstract search teams.
|
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | - My dataflow diagram isn't as thorough as I'd like to be, but things such as transaction have not been finalized so I have not included them in the diagram. |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
Total: 13 |
5. Additional Comments
|
| | Although technically both items are completed, I feel that 90% may be a bit high for a completion value. Since both are unused and untested, both may radically change before being being integrated. Also, I'm sure integration will break some stuff. Especially with threaded code, where it is far easier to make a simple logically mistake and cause a thread to completely freeze.
Great job--I'm very clear on exactly where you stand. It's always difficult to decide how much you've actually completed when it's untested, so thanks for the clarification. As a side-note, you have to use a non-IE browser to use html tags properly. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Good milestone report--I can tell exactly where you stand. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | I don't want to sit around and point fingers, but Brad is culpable for most of this because of the fact that he kept changing designs of the Backend and Relationships. The fact that we are completely redoing the Backend with 6 weeks to go is absolutely unbelievable, and it cripples everyone else in the process. I'm sure that this played a huge part in the Backend's team inability to deliver a finalized interface for querying relationships. But I would have expected that they would have had that at the highest priority, as right now I'm still looking at an interface that doesn't work. Our capability to do pretty much any work this week was hamstrung because of this.
I also would have liked to see Rae get the documentation to us earlier than she had, but since it wasn't really part of our milestone and it's mainly her depending on us for it, I'm not as upset that we were unable to deal with the search trees. I think another couple days and we'll be able to have something. Maybe.
Stay tuned. My journal for this week is not going to be a pleasant one.
The honesty is appreciated. I would recommend that in future weeks, you try to head off this problem when milestones are assigned. It's sometimes the best you can do when dependencies break. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | I think this is a pretty fair evaluation of what you've done. I have a recommendation for your milestone assignments for future weeks: make them concrete. It's easy for team leads to leave them vague, because they know what they mean and don't need to worry about misinterpretation. However, it's essential for the rest of the team to know exactly how problems will be solved by those at the top. Therefore, I think you should specifically state how you'll go about accomplishing those vague, manager-y tasks you tackle. Good job here, though. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | In the section about what's incomplete, be a bit more specific about what's left to be done. You've said what you've done, but not what's left to do. Otherwise, this is fairly clear. Keep in mind that the function of these reports is so the rest of the class can figure out exactly where the project stands each week. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Your report is very clear, but make sure to clean up the milestone assignment page (or be more specific about your milestones here). For example, I don't see replacing up the old data tables as being assigned to you in the milestone list. Next time, either assign it to yourself or state here that it's a team milestone. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | I did not get as much as I would have liked accomplished this week, but a lot of the assigned milestones I feel are not applicable, at present. For example, G2, which I consider differed.
Actual milestones:
G1: Finalize Ordering Criteria Implementation and test current abstract search tree implementation. Demonstrate usage for advanced search, listing a users content on their profile, etc.
G2: Create a detailed specification for how abstract searches will integrated with SPARQL graph matching. Perhaps we will decide that abstract searching can be completely represented in SPARQL, or that we want to be able to search within SPARQL results.
G3: Implement the end-user search string parsing. In particular, decide how the user's search will be broken into the various meta-data on content that it can match, and how those matches will be implemented. Further implement various desired predicates like OR, AND, or NOT. Look at how various in place systems do this, such as google.
G4: Determine the interface that will be used for computation of order by fields. Create the system that will allow a ranking value for each piece of content to be associated with that content (you don't need to compute the ranking, just persist it - you'll have to coordinate with the backend on where to put it). Then incorporate the ability to order by these fields into the abstract search code. Use a simple computation to begin with. Also determine how we will get things to run as background processes in general.
P1: Create specification and usage guide documentation for the Search trees.
P2: Redesign the search selection (now expression) tree to allow for searching relationships.
P3: Demonstrate usage for advanced searches in documentation.
There is good information here, but might I make a suggestion for future weeks? If a milestone is in fact deferred, you should clear that with Brad and move it to the next week (or whatever week it should be done). There is definitely a line between "not completed" and "not assigned"--for the team's sake as much as the staff's, make sure the milestone assignment list on the site reflects that. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Some miscommunication happened with creating the interface. Brad had done extensive research on RDF/SPARQL, so I asked him on Friday to create a document summarizing his suggestions. The backend team met on Saturday afternoon to work out the interface, not getting Brad's email until Saturday evening.
Next time, please present us with a link to your actual milestone text and tell us specifically what you did. As a side note, I'm a bit wary about deeming it acceptable to leave a milestone unfinished. You and Brad should make those decisions at the beginning of the week and then take it off the milestone assignment list (or adjust the due date). If it's assigned and on the list when the milestone is due, it should be completed. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | v.2 (firefox crashed, ergo Vista crashed) These laptops seem to crash a lot sadly, and I find that power button is getting more use than it should. I'm writing this one on my desktop back in my room now. I apologize for the lateness, but I did have to rewrite this over again, ugh.
I think I ended up repeating myself a lot here, but it's hard not to talk about where some of our problems lie.
Also, I hear Corey's gonna make tomorrow's meeting not so fun for us. I mean...lots of fun for the TA's and Dr. Wong, but not so much for us ;)
Sorry about the crash, and the detail that you've had to rewrite is appreciated. What you have here is fine for this week, but I do have some requests. Firstly, please link to your milestone so we can see verbatim what you're to be held accountable for. Also, divide things up by section between what you've done and what you haven't rather than putting it all in the first section. Your explanation is fine where it is. Lastly, please talk to Brad and Corey about better milestone assignment, because it appears that that's what has held you back. Milestones should not change once they've been assigned. Late; -5 pts. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Thanks for the honesty (and good call on the foresight on milestone distribution. Oh, and please link to your milestone assignments for the week. Late; -5 pts. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | This is very clear, but next time, please link to your actual milestone and then describe exactly what you did. You should elaborate beyond merely restating your assignment. Late; -5 pts. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | Thanks for the honesty, but this is a bit brief. Low achievement percentages probably merit a bit of explanation. Also, please link to your milestone. Late; -5 pts. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
| | This is a bit brief; try to be a little less high-level here. Late; -5 pts. --Chelsea |
| | | 1 (8%) | |
|
|
Total: 13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|