Discussions in Sparx do you use it?

[BobM]

I recently started looking into discussions (was forced to as its open in our PCS and people started contributing in them)

I find it a bit harder to resolve these discussions.
Issues we are having is that somehow we can't copy paste from discussion into notes when people add detailed information; We have to login to WebEA, find the element, and copy from there into the EA client.
Another issue is when people try to initiate a change request, which they think isn't a change request, using discussions; Its easy to put to accepted, rejected, or deferred but deferred or rejected just lingers into oblivion.

My question: Does anyone uses them, and how?

To be blunt I'm actually happy they do give feedback on the models using this; But not at the cost of using elaborate methods to adjust simple things.

[Geert Bellekens]

We don't.

Geert

[qwerty]

Never used that. Discussions are best held on a whiteboard. Eventually you can pin printed UML diagrams there. Even if you take an online video session: anything is better than this half-baked thingy in EA.

q.

[ea0522]

Just discovered a way to access the discussions more easily.
When you use the ribbon option "Start => All Windows => Collaborate => History => Discussion", a dockable window is shown with the title "Discuss & Review History".
In the Discussion tab, an overview of all discussions appears.
Clicking on an object results in the object selected in the Project Browser and Properties windows.
From there on you can work with the discussions.
The discussions on the objects itself can be shown using the ribbon option "Start => All Windows => Collaborate => Discuss & Review Elements => Discuss".
Hope this helps.

[BobM]

Just discovered a way to access the discussions more easily.
When you use the ribbon option "Start => All Windows => Collaborate => History => Discussion", a dockable window is shown with the title "Discuss & Review History".
In the Discussion tab, an overview of all discussions appears.
Clicking on an object results in the object selected in the Project Browser and Properties windows.
From there on you can work with the discussions.
The discussions on the objects itself can be shown using the ribbon option "Start => All Windows => Collaborate => Discuss & Review Elements => Discuss".
Hope this helps.

We use the same method, and its okayish, especially since you can use the find in diagram/browser from the same screen, but then you still have the restrictions I mentioned in the original posts.

I understand it is work in progress and hopefully they will expand on it but as it is now I have to agree it isn't mature enough yet (unless someone knows better methods to utilize the discussions?)

Never used that. Discussions are best held on a whiteboard. Eventually you can pin printed UML diagrams there.

Yes for reviews, no for older diagrams that aren't up to date; drag a person into a meeting where there minds aren't set to it and you get half-answers.
When they are busy with it; and consulting the diagrams to situate themselves on how it works now they do need a place to enter their comments; Discussions do that, but the problem I'm having is being able to properly process the initiated discussions.

[BJTim]

We use discussions and mails and (maybe in near future) reviews.
But this is a change in progress, as we use Evernote for the purpose, too, and apart from the linking this is not that bad, neither.

Greetings
Bernd

[qwerty]

Discussions do that, but the problem I'm having is being able to properly process the initiated discussions.

Indeed, that's the critical issue. And that's probably what a good consultant is paid for ;-)

q.

[ducatiross]

We tried using the discussions capability. We didn't like it. It focused on the 'what' rather than the 'why'. Proper discussions via Teams sharing screens has been SO much more valuable. Elevated the conversations from 'what is that entity and why is it linked to this one' to 'what requirement is this trying to model and why is this important to the user' as well as 'why is this model here when we have this other one that does something very similar - what's the difference between them, and actually, if it was modelled like this it could cover all these other possibilities'.

I think it's of very limited value.

Matthew