2017-2018-1 Java deductive group meetings and interactive summaries (not regularly updated)

First week meeting

Today our group conducted the first team meeting. Our team divided the law of construction into six parts and six members to learn from the first and upload to the team leader to learn the harvest, the event is the first two weeks of communication team members learn to read the "Construction of the Law" Harvest .
In the exchange of members, we will exchange the summary of this part of our reading with others, so as to have a general understanding of what we have not read. One of the team members Liu Weikang mentioned that we want to form a "Symphony Team Model" of the group is common in this team meeting, he proposed to avoid "star mode" out of control when a single big state, so that everyone has a clear division of labor and Responsibility, At the same time, when a member's work is temporarily hindered, other members will be able to fill his work in time. This allows everyone in the team to maximize and format their own power, there will not be a person to work a lazy situation. At the same time we also have not completed their own reading project Mo Lizhong students to encourage, I hope he can study hard, in the next communication to show his learning results.

"This exchange summary was recorded by Ma June "
"2017.10.11 Night"

Second week meeting

Today (10.18) Our team conducted a second team meeting. Our team focused on the pros and cons of our group in the first two weeks and the division of the team's tasks in the third week.
We first determined the general division of the team's tasks in the third week, in which the group members Liu Xianyun the map. In the selection of the game discussion, our group opinion divergence, team leader Shi and members Ma June think the game is more easy to sell, Mo Lizhong want a little more new RPG-type game, and social-oriented, but I think the development of social games consumption of people months too much, so we also need further discussion selection.
A sense of pride arose when I asked the team members about the characteristics of the group and the pros and cons of the team's performance for the first two weeks. Although our team has just formed, there is no development projects, cooperation, some experience, but we have been in accordance with the teacher's request for the first two weeks, but also reference to the "Construction of the Law" part of the improvement, our team each week for the team to spend some time, the weekly meeting feel really good, From the point of view of software engineering, our team strives to be an agile team in the symphony orchestra model, and we communicate more frequently than other teams. Liu Chenghao also said that the second week of our team members selected games are relatively new, such a tacit understanding and self-confidence is precisely our team's characteristics and advantages.
Most of the team members even think that our group does not have "shortcomings", I think our group still lacks some run-in, in the hand-over work also to strengthen the supervision, otherwise it will delay the weekly group summary of the blog post time. We believe that with the continuous cooperation of our team members, we will be able to perform well.

"This exchange summary is recorded by Liu Weikang "
"2017.10.18 Night"

Third week meeting

The eighth week our group held a meeting to discuss the following topics:

1. What were the conclusions we formed after the interview last week? How does the back work?
2. Discuss the plan that Ma June made is unreasonable? Unreasonable and timely modification.
3. (important) Refer to the user requirements in the QQ group file, look at the introduction of each software background, purpose, acceptance criteria, clear and discuss the software we want to do the relevant content and specific requirements.
4. The first three weeks compared to other groups, we have nothing to learn from the place

For the first question: Shi believes that the need to focus on the code, work efficiency to ensure that the team's development to do before the bitter sweet. In addition to Shi's comments, Liu Weikang classmates added. He thinks that in the future work, should pay attention to write the work document to explain the situation, especially in the code aspect, the code must use the comment to explain the code the running logic, and notice the product code to add the document description, the content: the class to the user's function, the time record, the remaining time estimate. Liu Chenghao as the test code responsible for the staff, he added later work they test the code this section needs to set the test project in advance. He believes that the test project is actually the user's needs, which is important, so this one should be done in advance.
For the second question: Most of the students have no objection, MA June students think their plans are still too broad. He thinks the problem focuses on the code, and he expects to be able to discuss the requirements statement and interface in the near future.
For the third problem: because of the task of the week, and the user needs a wide range of files, so most of the students did not read.

"This exchange summary is recorded by Shi "
"2017.10.26 Night"

45th Week Interaction

• When the team work to the third week, Lou teacher gave us a task: interview teachers or experienced students, interview them about the project development experience, team organization, team members collaboration, time-cycle arrangements, including but not limited to the above content of the interview. Before the interview, prepare the appropriate outline and do your homework.

• Because the students have not experienced the cooperative development project experience, so everyone asked questions are almost a few points:

  1. How to divide
  2. Scheduling in time
  3. Group cohesion

• I also asked members of various groups about their team's time allocation and the challenges they encountered. The feedback I got was that some of my classmates were worried about the uneven level of code in the group and that there might be a larger code task assigned to them. But they did not think of a good solution for the time being.

• On this issue, some of the interviewed teachers and seniors learned that the answers they give are as follows:

  1. All members of the group knock the code together.
  2. Select the team members of the practical staff.
  3. Give full play to each team member's expertise and assign them the best job.

• For the above aspects, I think the 3rd realization is easier, the first 2nd realization of the difficulty degree descending. Why is it?

• On the 1th of all the members of the team to knock the code, according to our group of soy sauce member (yes, I), it is true that we can quickly improve my own code level, but it is very likely that the problem is: My foundation is too weak to knock out the code, seriously affect the progress of the team project. So what is the solution to my situation, and I ask the team to assign me more questions about the outside of the code: discussion, blog thinking, ideas for promotion. But the code can not fall, so I discussed with Liu Weikang The result is: As far as the allocation of code tasks let me write, or the team members to discuss the writing, if my code level can catch up with them over a period of time, then let them assign more code tasks to me. In general, the level of the poor people more engaged in logistics, code tasks can be less distributed, with the other team behind more learning to improve the level, and so on to get up the same amount of work.

• About the 2nd of the selection of members, can only say that if the group cohesion enough, team members do their job, in fact, do not have to discuss with the group before the establishment of the group, we all want to fix the project, there is this heart plus action, who are a good seedling.

"This interactive task is done by Mo Lizhong "
"2017.11.02 Night"

67th Week Interaction

• Team tasks have been carried out to sixth seventh week, from the beginning of the specification how to write, to now according to the "Construction of the Law" fourth chapter discussion of the code specification, each team has entered the beginning code framework stage.
  To do this, I continued my interactive task and did a few simple questions and answers to the groups.

  The bug Terminator team said: Their requirements specification has not yet achieved their satisfactory results, so their team task arrangement is: Let the team members of the requirements specification of any chapter (optional) to modify, and on the basis of this task for the team members to find material about the app, and start the architecture of the app.
  The Jaworld team said: The difficulty they encountered was that they would encounter code that they did not understand and were worried that they could not catch up with the development process.
  The remaining two groups I get the same information as the above two groups, for the problems encountered are some development of the above problems.

• Interactive reflection:

  I feel that this time and the previous interaction is too hasty and too careless, many groups of my (Mo Lizhong) came to express doubts, and my questions about them are always the same: what problems encountered? How are you going to solve it? How to divide? The content that can be presented in a team blog.

• Interaction improvements (when the next team job):

  I'll prepare a problem template and discuss the development issues that our team is experiencing with other teams, so that the interaction is no longer simple. You ask me a link, but you can communicate with each group to make suggestions or improvements, and learn the advanced content of other groups.

"This interactive task is done by Mo Lizhong "
"2017.11.19 Night"

Eighth Week meeting

• Look forward to Liu Xianyun Summary!

2017-2018-1 Java deductive group meetings and interactive summaries (not regularly updated)