Re: Final text of ballot

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@east.sun.com>]

At 05:39 PM 4/7/01 -0700, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>I am also a semi-inactive member of this subcommittee who failed to
>vote on these issues. However, this one in particular brought me in
>mind of the old saw about the Engineer, the Computer Scientist, and
>the Toaster, which I feel the need to share:
>
>         The Engineer, The Computer Scientist and the Toaster

To which I feel a need to quote a line from the original movie "The Fly": 
This would be funny if life weren't so sacred. :-)

I'm very sorry not to have caught up with this crucial thread until now; 
I'm in RLBob's camp on this one.  ('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.')

I believe that the TC as a whole will expect traceability back to the 
requirements we have developed.  If there are design features that add 
complexity, and they go significantly outside the *written* requirements, 
the burden will be on the Core group to articulate what requirement is 
being met by the feature and why we should accept that requirement.  If 
there are design features that are more elegant by virtue of being more 
general, we should still check briefly to see if we should "be in that 
business."

         Eve
--
Eve Maler                                             +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Development  eve.maler @ east.sun.com