Inputs to the WG's queue: Was Re: [minutes] May 16 meeting

> 
>   TimP: What remains in the use case doc then?
>   … is it a list of pointers to use cases in explainers?
>   … I'll take this to the list - I can put some time on this once
>   I understand what we want to achieve
>   … I want to expand the scope a bit more than just for the WG

I realize that in an absurdly busy month I have failed to do this.

So this is a (very late) attempt to rectify that.

Here’s my feeling of the output of the last meeting:

We agreed that the current input isn’t optimal and that the NV-usecases document needs a re-work.
Bernard is heroically doing that.

We agreed that explainers are very useful for making a detailed case for a change but didn’t agree how they should relate to usecases doc.
Which doc should include pointers to which - or are they separate ? In a world of explainers do we just need an index and nothing more?

We didn’t agree on the _exact_ purpose of the use-cases document.
I’m of the view that it represents a promise to developers and is somewhat outward facing
  - others feel that it is entirely to guide and shape the WG discussions (inward facing). 

A key difference is in the treatment of use cases that are supported by the current implementations and APIs but not described in 7478 or elsewhere. I think for developers to feel _safe_ these use cases need to be documented _somewhere_ - if not in the usecases document - then where? The counter view is that since they provide no new requirements they don’t represent a useful input to the WG and are a distraction.

I’d welcome input on these matters.


T.

Received on Monday, 26 June 2023 10:05:33 UTC