Re: Lists in normative section

A quick clarification to my previous message to correct a poorly
written sentence: I think we should decide which of the two potential
misinterpretations Gregg identified is worse, write the guidelines in
such a way as to avoid this misinterpretation while still allowing the
other, then do our best to militate against the latter
misinterpretation so far as possible.

Of course if someone contrives a proposal that avoids both
misinterpretations/misapplications of the guidelines we should accept
it. My opinion at present is that I would rather include the "items to
be considered" in reviews directly under the review requirements
themselves, in the success criteria, rather than in separate
"additional ideas" sections. This doesn't change the substance of the
review requirements: the ultimate test is still whether a review was
conducted. Rather it simply inserts the list of desiderata directly
into the text of the success criteria that establish the requirements
for a review.

Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 03:49:52 UTC