At least two individuals will meet collectively with each team, all of whose members mush be present, at a time to be mutually determined, to review the software being developed, its architecture, construction, design, the management of this project, and the contribution of individuals within the team to it. Each meeting will take 30 minutes, and will be scheduled via an online poll.

This is a strictly oral interview in which some questions may be directed to the entire team, while others may only be answered by the indicated individual. No aids beyond access to a white board are permitted presenters.

This is not an exam, but only an exploration and review of the work you claim to be undertaken as part of your course project, which you consequently should already be intimately familiar with. However, you will need to be familiar with methods of describing your software architecture which make sense to those initially unfamiliar with it. Your goal should be to convey as clearly and as concisely as possible in your initial 15-20 minute oral presentation your high level software architecture and your justification for employing this architecture within your project.

To the extent that this is possible all present are encouraged to review, explore and comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the system as presented. Those reviewing your work will have access to all prior documentation submitted by you and may make reference to that earlier documentation, ask questions about it, and relate that earlier documentation to your material as presented in this walk through.

You will also be expected to explain (without help or prompting from others) your own individual contribution to the project, and why that contribution was of value to the team as a whole. If there are concerns about this contribution, the history of activity relating to this software development, as reflected in the commit history associated with the source control system being used, and all prior written documentation may be reviewed. It is important that no matter how you contributed, you identify those major contributions, least they otherwise be overlooked.

If it is deemed necessary, additional time may be requested by the TA's to review and discuss individual projects with team members, to ensure that in the marking of them, they are themselves sufficiently familiar with them. The time and length of such meetings are to be arranged between the team and the TA's wishing to further review a deliverable.