MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
wsia message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E903]
Hi Everyone,
I started to respond to this as I work my way from the most recent
posts on this list back to Alan's first set of posts. I did not start
responding to those Friday evening largely because the primary reason
I have the time to do so is because I am waiting for decisions on
several proposals I have submitted to various groups, and once those
decisions are made I probably won't have time to follow up, and I
know how disconcerting such behavior can be in working groups such as
this committee.
However, this one sort of crystallizes a number of issues, but most
importantly for me, it shows clearly how far down into actual
specification material we have drilled. I don't think this level of
specificity is helpful or useful in the requirements stage. Feel free
to disagree, but don't you all think that this sort of thing needs to
hashed out from a requirement in writing the actual specification?
Perhaps we could cull out a number of these highly specific issues
and try to write fewer higher level requirements.
The discussion is useful and we might as well continue on, because
whether we narrow down our requirements or just rewrite large parts
of the requirements as the actual specification, the work gets done,
so we aren't actually spinning our wheels.
Ciao,
Rex
At 9:31 AM +0300 5/5/02, Gil Tayar wrote:
>See my E902 about the use of "Handle" in the requirments document.
>
>Having said that - I just don't understand this requirement.
>
>