From: josh@interaccess.ie [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 10:19 AM Very interesting thread, and thanks to all for input. I think Greggs comment about stuffing an SC with too many provisions is something we really need to remember when drafting SCs. While it seems like it is going to create more potential SCs, I'd rather see more with clearer requirments rather than fewer that are stuffed with too much and difficult to satisfy. [Jason] I also think Gregg is right in saying that we should strive to define general concepts, where possible, that capture the instances we want, instead of creating long lists that run the risk of being unclear and non-exhaustive. In the case of the proposal under discussion, I think it’s actually a list of separate but related requirements, raising the question whether it’s actually best written as a Guideline with a series of success criteria under it. I have issues to raise with the proposal itself, but that’s a separate discussion. ________________________________ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for your compliance. ________________________________
Received on Monday, 15 August 2016 15:32:36 UTC