[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Use case doc handoff
At 11:38 AM 2/22/01 -0800, Darren Platt wrote: >How will we determine the point where the use case and requirements subgroup >turns over its doc to the other groups? There are some who feel the use >case subgroup's job is done at some point once the other groups have begun >working. There are others who feel there is some kind of maintenance mode >that follows. Others still think it should stay active. I've been assuming that our TC will definitely publish a requirements document (or a requirements section of the SAML spec?), which means that there will be a document that needs care and feeding over time. In keeping with Bob B.'s suggestion about subgroups "owning" pieces of documents, I think it would be a good idea to keep the use-case group "on reserve" to assess any comments that come in on the requirements document/section, and to attempt to do the traceability I described on the phone. The workload probably won't be zero, nor will it be as heavy as the last few weeks have been. On the idea of a requirements document vs. requirements section, I prefer the former because: - Requirements and use cases are non-normative, and it's better not to fill a spec with non-normative stuff when you can just point to it - It allows us to publish a relatively "whole" work product as soon as possible to the public, so we can get feedback and keep the momentum going Does all this sound sensible, or am I missing something big? >On a related note, I think at one point I suggested to the use case mailing >list that our issue resolution process might be valuable to the TC at large >after straw man 3 and/or the face to face. I want to make sure that I was >clear that my thought here was that Eve would take over the process at some >point - whenever the TC as a whole deemed the group's work to be 'ready' (my >first question, above) - as it could be effectively controlling the scope of >our work. I'd imagine that the issues that come up will be more and more >implemenation specific (as opposed to requirement-oriented) as well. I'd >imagine a continuum of issues coming up, really, gradually moving from >requirements to implementation details. So I thought that maybe if we had a >requirements issue resolution process with a little forward inertia, maybe >it would save us some time as we widen the audience. If I'm understanding correctly, you're asking whether the process you've developed for handling use-case issues could be suitable for other issues that come up on other SAML sections. I'm pretty sure that it could. Each subgroup will be a natural home for collecting issues on the spec section they own, but I agree that for a decision on an issue to be "official" it needs to be made by the TC as a whole. If instead you're asking about the proper disposition of the *actual issues* you've come up with, I'm thinking that if we don't get through all the use cases/requirements/issues emanating from your subgroup on 2 March, we should make the next bunch of meetings be an extension of the F2F, where we continue to hear your subgroup's recommendations and consider them as a series of motions. Hope this helps, Eve -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ east.sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC