W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Fwd: SIMPLER requirements ordering (due April 14)

From: Daniel Burnett <danielcburnett@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:04:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+EnjbJGfEXBYoZD9wOa3MMu4u0frNTgS_Q-Bg2xL0xq3D8mfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Manu, if you included non-critical items in your top 10 but left out
critical items, then you are decreasing the likelihood that those items you
consider critical will rise to the top.  I strongly encourage you to give
the process a try rather than second-guessing it.  You still have time to
adjust your scorings.

-- dan

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 04/12/2017 10:42 AM, Daniel Burnett wrote:
> > After addressing the requirements of greatest interest to the group
> > we will repeat the process with the requirements not yet addressed,
> > so the ones you don't mark in your top 10 may be addressed later.
>
> Digital Bazaar has filled out the spreadsheet here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qx-i9raLULuU2Px0EGZsPn4KFFuxXxqVt
> ziT6IhiGjY/edit
>
> Note that we picked things in a bit of a strange way as there are
> critical requirements that, if not met, result in a system that does not
> work. Key discoverability is an example of this. During our first pass,
> we ended up allocating all of our points to 10 things that the system
> MUST have to be commercially viable.
>
> So, we removed all 10 of our allocations and moved our points to things
> that assume the critical requirements. Our votes are for the
> higher-order requirements that assume the critical features that the
> spec already caters to.
>
> I don't know how this will play out in practice, but if things that we
> see as vital to the healthy operation of the ecosystem are not seen as
> critical to the work, we'll most likely point that out and then see
> where the group wants to go from there.
>
> A better approach may be to put all of these things in high/medium/low
> buckets and then identify items in the "high" bucket that, if not done,
> would result in a non functional system. We would then prioritize what's
> left. Or we could leave out critical requirements altogether,
> understanding that those are high priority.
>
> In any case, let's make this first pass and see where we are after that.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/
>
>
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2017 19:06:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:36 UTC