Re: HNTF Criteria for rejecting use-cases...

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 08:40:10 +0200, Russell Berkoff  
<r.berkoff@sisa.samsung.com> wrote:

> Hi Giuseppe,
>
Russell,

> On what basis is HNTF rejecting use-cases?
>
So far we haven't really rejected usecases, or better we have rejected  
those usecases that we felt either already covered or that were split in  
smaller use cases.
So that is what I meant for rejected in my previous mail.

Of course we may still decide to reject use cases.

> I suppose "reasonable" rejection criteria is:
>- vague (cant generate requirements)
> - infeasible  (requirements cant be practically realized with current  
> technology)
> - merged (all requirements covered by another use-case).
>Outside of these criteria should the HNTF reject any submitted use-cases  
> which does not have one or more of these defects?We have various  
> opinions and approaches. Maybe the differences should be best worked  
> throught by the Working Groups?
>May want to add HNTF policy statement to the Report?

The criteria you mention above are all reasonable. Another one could be  
that the use case is out of scope, but I haven't seen such a problem so  
far.
In general, while I can see discussions and different opinions on how to  
actually support a given use case, I doubt we will have big discussions on  
use cases themselves.

Anyway, in general we need to produce a requirement document that needs to  
be agreed by this group (and the IG). The approval will proceed in the  
usual way: we will try to reach consensus, trying to address concerns when  
raised. If on some points we cannot reach consensus but there is a clear  
majority, the use case (or whatever is under discussion) get mentioned in  
the requirement document but also the objections are recorded.

So all the opinion will (reasonably) be mentioned. As you say, is then up  
for a WG to start from our inputs and move forward.

/g

>Regards,
> Russell Berkoff
> Samsug



-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software - Sweden