Re: Deferred requirements in the UCR document

Frans,

I agree it does make sense to remove the section.

Ed


On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 at 10:39 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> While updating the Use Cases and Requirements document I noticed the
> section 'Deferred requirements'. The introduction of that sections says *"This
> section lists requirements that are considered relevant for the group's
> work, but will not be addressed in the current time frame.". *Currently
> the section only contains one SSN requirement.
>
> I keep wondering about the logic of having this section. If the deferred
> requirements will not be addressed in the current time frame (I assume that
> is the period of SDWWG activity), that would mean all the other *will* be
> addressed. Do we really want to say that? I would be fine with the UCR
> document listing all requirements and the other deliverables deciding for
> themselves which requirements will be met and why. I think the decision of
> deferring  meeting  a requirement is not one that should be made in the UCR
> document, it should be made in the deliverables for which the
> requirements are meant.
>
> I will leave the section as it is now, but I would like to ask if there
> are strong objections against removing the section and putting the SSN
> requirement it contains back among the other requirements.
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
> --

*Ed Parsons *FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501
www.edparsons.com @edparsons