hi Andrew, Andrew Grimshaw wrote:
Balazs, All,
As I said in my email and comments on the 4/29 draft the GES strawman/requirements document has several places where it goes from requirements into specification, and where the requirements are quite vague. I sent those comments in embedded in the document. My listing of the requirements was not an attempt to replace the strawman document, but to distill the requirements from the prose. Without concise requirements it is difficult to move from requirements to specifications.
indeed, your commented feedback is very helpful and now it is on our table to propagate your suggestions to the requirement draft. the draft is not completed at all, nevertheless on the phone conferences we seemed to develop an agreement about the requirements. Now we "just" have to write it down properly. I agree that the implementation parts should go away, those were initially added to help the better understanding of a certain requirement. all in all: there is more work to be done on the requirement strawman document. cheers, Balazs