Re: moving on, was Re: Fw: WG Review: ...

[George Belotsky <george@register.com>]

Ed:

In response to your request for suggestions regarding the design team,
here are some notes on its possible structure and operation.

   * Each team member will be assigned primary responsibility 
     for a part of the design.  The division of the overall task
     into these parts, as well as the assignment, shall be by
     unanimous consent.
   
   * Each member will focus on their area of primary responsibility.

   * The whole team will periodically review each member's work, but
     unanimous consent would not be required (i.e. in their area of
     primary responsibility, a member carries more weight than others
     on the team).  The reviews would thus focus primarily on the
     interfaces between constituent parts of the design.


Hopefully, the above arrangement will create a clear assignment of
responsibilities but in a relatively informal environment -- which is
conductive to the creative work of design.

George.





On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 12:06:42PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> As much as I hate to cut off communication on a topic, I don't think the
> revent thread on the charter is in any way is helping us arrive at
> protocol.  In fact, I might go so far as to say that this thread has gone
> off-topic for the mailing list.
> 
> All I can say here is that we have already had a discussion on the charter,
> and it has not yet been approved by the IESG.  I am waiting for feedback
> from the IESG before anything else can be done on this matter.  Further
> discussion on this is just like spinning tires in mud.
> 
> Let's get back to discussions on the requirements document (if there is any
> more to be held).  I assume there is consensus that the requirements
> document should be admitted to the WG (once we are official).
> 
> Suggestions for the Feb 20 meeting agenda are welcome.
> 
> I'd also like to hear thoughts about organizing a design team (whether we
> should, size, shape, nominees perhaps).
> 
> I think it is about time we begin to look at the EPP document.  Does the
> latest EPP draft meet the latest draft of requirements?  Is there an
> objection to including EPP in the WG set of documents?
> 
> If there is an alternative proposal to be considered, please identify it.
> 
> If there are other documents that should be added to the WG, please
> identify them.  (The definitions document will likely be one.)
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
> Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com
> 
> Dilbert is an optimist.
> 
> Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.
> 
> 

-- 
-----------------------------
George Belotsky
Senior Software Architect
Register.com, inc.
george@register.com
212-798-9127 (phone)
212-798-9876 (fax)