Re: [PRD] PRD Review By Example

It sounds like the editing process is that you are the sole editor of 
PRD and what goes into the PRD spec is whatever you want to put there 
whenever you want to put it there.

I suggest that if you have found inconsistencies (not at all surprising) 
then you share those issues with the working group (or at least the 
co-authors), and if you have specific proposals about how to fix the 
issues, then you share such proposals with the group and we can resolve 
them and assign actions to fix them.

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> Gary Hallmark wrote:
>
>> No, I do not want to consider the FPWD.  I expect that editors are 
>> working on the latest version that is maintained on the wiki, and I 
>> expect that editors don't have a private offline copy with extensive 
>> changes. Changes should me made visible at least daily. We agreed in 
>> the last telecon that we would each review the wiki version.  I have 
>> identified issues that need to be addressed.  For additional 
>> visibility into the PRD editing process, my issues may generate 
>> resolutions about what/how to modify the document, and actions about 
>> who will modify the document.
>
> Gary,
>
> I just wanted to reiterate what I said at the telecon, though maybe 
> not clearly enough, that is, that that part of the wiki draft is in an 
> inconsistent state; and that, of course, there are issues with an 
> inconsistent version, but that I was working on making it consistent; 
> and, thus, I wanted to suggest that it might be more productive either 
> to work with the latest consistent version, or to wait for the next 
> consistent version.
>
> This being said...
>
> As regards making changes visible daily: well, I tend to understand 
> things by writing them down, then reading them; and, thus, I may 
> produce for myslef many different versions that do not make sense, and 
> I know they do not make sense, and they are useless except for my own 
> internal process.
>
> I rather think that publishing such private versions of my own 
> intermediate states of understanding would be more disruptive than 
> useful, and, at the very least, a waste of time for everybody to read 
> them. I rather think that it is more useful if we all put on the wiki 
> only modifications or additions that we think make sense, even if it 
> means doing some work in the background.
>
> But I am open about it, and we can discuss what should be our policy 
> in this regard.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>

Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 19:36:10 UTC