- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 12:56:00 -0800
- To: <hardie@equinix.com>
- Cc: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "\"Yaron Goland \(Exchange\)\"" <yarong@exchange.microsoft.com>, "'Patrik Fältström'" <paf@swip.net>, "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "Scott Lawrence" <lawrence@agranat.com>, <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "\"Josh Cohen \(Exchange\)\"" <joshco@exchange.microsoft.com>, "\"Peter Ford \(Exchange\)\"" <peterf@exchange.microsoft.com>
> Your note below that appointing an app directorate which can > "object to proposals and provide timely technical/philosophical > feedback" as a solution seems to me to indicate that you would have > prefered theory 2 to either theory 1 or theory 3. It also seems to > miss the point. The ADs aren't the app area; they are the technical > managers of the area. The app area itself needs to have the cycles > and interest in providing timely technical/philosophical feedback. My proposal is not to have more app ADs - it is to have a body next to the ADs that frees them from making architectural decisions and focus on process. The diversity of the Apps area makes it hard to have an end2end-interest equivalent and I think such a group has to be chartered to review documents and to call out dependencies between groups. The group has to contain app people with a broad knowledge of the app area and with commitment to actually produce output. I used the word "directorate" as I believe such groups have existed in the past in other areas and that this was the term used. Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 15:56:44 UTC