Re: Plenary agenda June 5

I'm not sure which ones you see as requirements for a spec. Can you give
a couple of examples?

My take is that as we were developing the use cases most of them were
about requirements for profiles, not requirements for a profile guidance
document. And we would take those requirements for profiles and turn
them into a guidance document.


On 6/1/18 9:06 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
> Are these supposed to be requirements as in
>   "these are the things the spec we are writing needs to accomplish"
> or requirements as in
>   "these are the things a profile needs to have to be a profile"?
> To me, the requirements listed on the agenda read as the latter, which
> are the contents of a spec (e.g., they use terms like "can" and "may"),
> but other requirements in the GDoc read as the former, which are
> requirements for a spec.
> -Annette
> On 6/1/18 6:54 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Jaroslav organized the requirements into categories, and the first few
>> categories are in the agenda for our discussion. PLEASE take a look at
>> them and be ready to vote. We will try to vote on entire categories
>> unless there are objections to specific requirements. If you will not be
>> at the meeting but wish to comment or vote, you may do so in email and
>> we will do our best to include your views.

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Saturday, 2 June 2018 07:17:36 UTC