| But I'd be awfully hesitant to say that ANY approach is "the
| solution" until we have a consensus on the requirements.
Which, of course, is exactly what we are trying to build right now
with the A and B reqs papers.
To echo Frank's personal comment, I believe that hashing things
out here on the open list is a good thing to do until we have
something that looks like a consensus that we
a/ promote the documents out of the RG towards RFC status
b/ send the documents back into committee for revision/consolidation
or c/ abandon the documents
While considering a solution, whether that work looks standardsish or not,
is something I would like the RG to do, I think primary focus should be
on arriving at an a, b or c as above.
Note that there is yet another option:
d/ consider ANOTHER document produced by an other person/other people
If someone wants to put forward their own reqs draft for consideration,
I see no problem in that. However, it's probably much much much more useful
to suggest changes/new text to one or the other editor/author-groups
than to write something up from scratch, since comprehensiveness is (to me)
a clear goal.
Note: if someone asks a question like, "did you consider XYZ?", and
the answer is "not really" or "yes, but we rejected it", I think it is fair
to then suggest that this be noted explicitly in the document, particularly
if you also suggest text that can easily be pasted into it. :-)
Remember, these are _drafts_.
Sean.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT