- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 00:02:50 -0400
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>
- CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 6/4/2014 11:41 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 6/4/14 11:02 AM, Nottingham, Mark wrote: >> Fixing this sort of thing needs a deep look into UX, not just band-aids. > > Well, duh. But history suggests that asking the Staff to work on a > `boil the ocean` approach is likely to result in a YA "sure, but first > we need mo' money, mo' money, mo' money" type response (as was the > case with a broad request for roadmap work). I'm not sure how to parse this critique. Usually, when one says to "boil the ocean" that implies solving much more than is required. In that case, I doubt that we would say mo' money, mo' money, mo' money. We simply would recommend not boiling the ocean. If there were a clear definition of the use case and requirements, it is not obvious to me why we would need mo' money, mo' money, mo' money. > > -AB > > >
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 04:03:00 UTC