Re: Identify Common Purpose - resolving issues

Detlev Fischer wrote:
> # No implementations. We have an indication that one is coming, but I’m 
> not sure if it is English-only or not.
> # Making the list – how it was determined, whether we add more, remove 
> some, reference externally, or what
> # Security concerns/conflicts.
Totes +1 to Detlev. Thanks for summarising the issues Andrew.

Some brief comments below:

 1. No implementations. We have an indication that one is coming, but
    I’m not sure if it is English-only or not.

Even if English only, at this initial stage I think thats ok - as long 
as there is one that satisfies the requirements of our Exit Criteria.

 1. Making the list – how it was determined, whether we add more, remove
    some, reference externally, or what

The case can be made that this work has to start somewhere - what we 
could do it profer/offer the list but make the case that users can 
define their own as long as the intent of the SC is satisfied.

 1. Security concerns/conflicts.

IMO These concerns will be there no matter what way we choose to slice 
this.

Detlev said:
> My proposal would be to have a straw poll at the outset whether we A - 
> move the SC to 2.2 for more discussion and solving the issues raised 
> in due course B - keep it on level AAA and wade through issues C - 
> keep it on current level and wade through issues

Again +1 to this - rather than getting lost in the weeds over this again 
today and take from other SC work. If we don't feel this is ready for 
prime time, then moving it to 2.2 is the best option IMO, or AAA while 
implementation details etc are worked out.

At this rate I dont think option C will fly (with the best will in the 
world).

Thanks

Josh

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie