RE: [rights-examples] Future Schedule/Roadmap

["Reddy, Hari" <Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM>]

Hi Patrick:
I agree with you that showing some illustration of an engineering process would help. I have tried to do that since we started the TC last year. I was actually very surprised when there was a discussion during one of our Requirements SC meetings in the beginning of this year that approval of the Requirements implied approval of the spec! This is far from any vision of any development process. I tried to illustrate my view of the process during the Feb 2, 2003 meeting again: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200302/msg00006.html.
Is this what you are proposing?
I would also suggest that we can't just stop at the point where we list sub processes and their dependencies. We need to agree upon some schedule. Without a schedule this becomes arguably more of a discussion forum. It also gives us more credibility and forces us to organize our individual schedules to support the group as a whole. It helps me when I talk to potential members also. Right now people are very concerned that without a schedule there is no focus.

Thanks...
Regards,
Hari


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:pdurusau@emory.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 11:38 AM
To: rights-examples@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [rights-examples] Future Schedule/Roadmap


Hari,

I can post this to the general list at some point but thought since the 
Examples SC is going to be proposing a way to move forward that it might 
be appropriate to start the discussion here.

I realize that the original time schedule slipped for a number of 
reasons that are probably not productive to discuss. The question is how 
to move forward from this point.

What do the members of this SC think about not proposing an overall 
calendar but allow individual tasks or goals to be calendared, while 
having a roadmap that outlines the various steps and dependencies for 
the process? What I am thinking of is the need to assure members that 
all examples will be worked prior to a vote on any committee proposal 
for example.

Does that make any sense? What I am afraid of is that insistence on a 
calendar by any perceived (whether real or not) group in the TC will 
lead to the sort of disputes that have distracted us from meaningful 
work in the past. I realize that is at variance with software project 
practices but I am not personally sure those translate very well into 
the development of standards.

Thoughts? Comments?

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps