RE: [plcs] PLCS TC Organization Workplan Overview

["Chris Kreiler" <kreilerc@mantech-wva.com>]

Nigel,

I agree with your comment.  A DEX Team doesn't necessarily have to be named
DEX 1, DEX 2, etc.  It could be the ABC Project DEX Team.  That way the ABC
Project DEX Team could be responsible for a number of DEXs.  

The organization diagram was meant to show where the DEX Teams would reside
within the PLCS structure and was based on the current naming conventions.  

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: nfn@lsc.co.uk [mailto:nfn@lsc.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:51 AM
To: plcs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [plcs] PLCS TC Organization Workplan Overview

An observation from a quick look at the Kreiler / Rutland Workplan Overview.

Should we be defining development teams by the specific DEX they are
developing? As funding to undertake any development is most likely to be
made available through implementation projects requiring a range of DEXs,
would we not be better off identifying a number of development teams under
the wing of the Technical Committee and then assigning particular DEX
development responsibilities to them (there probably being more DEXs to be
developed than we will ever achieve funded teams)? For example : Team 1 to
deliver DEX 1 & 8, Team 4 to deliver DEX 4 & 9 etc.