dear David, Steven, others David Wallom wrote: was [Pgi-wg] Promised document
HI Moreno,
Could we then have effort from Balazs, Morris or yourself to remove the "This needs text", "Further info needed" sections etc. Personally I prefer the extremely concise list within Andrews document. If we don't like that can we strip the Strawman (which it is not a requirements document) of extraneous text and get back to an explicit list of the requirements for specific components.
David
Steven wrote:
So what about Andrew's document? He has gone through and enumerated each requirement in a particular area... why would you not use this SHORT document to help determine where we have consensus and where we do not?
Steven
The group has been discussing the requirement document through quite some meetings. By now I consider the requirement document being accepted by the group. The document is THIS one: http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc15590?nav=1 and not any kind of derivatives of it. The document is still a draft, it needs some further editing. Unfortunately, that editing work is pending because of the ever opening new discussion frontiers. I encourage everyone to send corrections related to the *original* requirement document. cheers, Balazs PGI co-chair