RE: Final text of ballot

["Orchard, David" <dorchard@jamcracker.com>]

I concur with Bob on the first point.  However, I'm not an active member of
core - as I've been focusing on use-cases and requirements for now - so I
don't think I get a vote.  Although I do think this should be brought up at
the F2F.

I'd also like ask a few questions about this two-phased or parallel
requirements/use cases process.  

1. There are many requirements that did not pass with enough votes, yet were
not explicitly added as "non-requirements".  How will the core group be
guided on these requirements?  

2. In some cases, generality was sacrificed for expediency and explicit
non-requirements were defined.  How will the core group be guided

3. How will the core groups requirements and use cases changes or
differences be documented, and relate to the use-case/requirements document?

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RL 'Bob' Morgan [mailto:rlmorgan@washington.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 6:55 AM
> To: OASIS Sec-Core
> Subject: Re: Final text of ballot
> 
> 
> 
> My votes below.
> 
>  - RL "Bob"
> 
> ---
> 
> > {AP-1} Generalized or specialized solution
> > This is a common question about the design process.  Should 
> we develop a
> > solution that is specialized to satisfying just those requirements
> > identified by the Use Case sub-committee, or should we 
> "induce" a more
> > general set of requirements and provide a solution for 
> that?  In the latter
> > case, we would "profile" the chosen design to address the 
> identified use
> > cases.
> > The arguments are familiar.  On the one hand, the 
> specialized solution could
> > be more streamlined for the particular situations 
> identified by the Use
> > Cases sub-committee.  On the other hand, the generalized 
> approach may turn
> > out to be sufficiently flexible to address a broader set of 
> problems, and
> > thereby find more widespread use.
> > Question: which of these statements do you agree with (only 
> one, please)?
> > Answer:
> > 1. We should develop a generalized solution as an interim 
> step to satisfying
> > the specific requirements identified by the Use Cases sub-committee.
> > 2. We should directly address the requirements identified 
> by the Use Case
> > sub-committee.
> 
> I vote for "2".  I think general-applicability is an underlying design
> principle that we will apply as engineers.  But I am opposed 
> to developing
> another list of "general" requirements distinct from those 
> generated by
> the use-case subcommittee.  If people have requirements that this spec
> should meet, they should work them through the use-case group.
>