RE: The Overview & Requirements Spec is TOAST ??

[richard drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>]

Yes Nick, that is how i saw (see) it also... I will update the requirements
document if david will not... as we go along... rik

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Kassem [mailto:nick.kassem@eng.sun.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:31 AM
To: David Burdett
Cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: The Overview & Requirements Spec is TOAST ??


Hi David,

I may have missed something here but on first reading I sense a bit of over
reaction. Is the main issue, that you personally don't have the bandwidth
or do you basically object to the process. After all we aren't talking
about a constitutional amendment here - surely there must be a rational way
of aligning the Requirements (as we talked about doing all along) to the
reality that we are facing *now*. I had always viewed the requirements as a
living document - was I mistaken ?

Regards,
Nick

At 12:50 PM 8/29/2000 -0700, David Burdett wrote:
>I don't think I agreed to update the Overview & Requirements spec on the
>fly?
>
>Particularly changing the requirements & overview spec at the same time as
>we're changing the messsaging services spec is completely untenable as it
>will lead to inconsistencies, and require a tremendous amount of time to do
>- that I haven't got. It also makes it a meaningless exercise since the
>REQUIREMENTS that are defined are no longer being used as REQUIREMENTS.
>
>So basically folks, now, my view is that the Overview and Requirements spec
>is TOAST !! We no longer need to refer to it, nor are we using it to:
>1. control the scope of what we do
>2. provide a reference of what we are trying to achieve.
>
>This also goes completely against all the project management/systems
>development activities I have ever been involved in where you write the
>requirements first then build to them.
>
>So my conclusion is ...
>
>         LET ANARCHY PREVAIL
>
>Ok, now perhaps I'm putting it a bit strong, but do we really want to build
>a solution without having ANY requirements onm which is based. I think not.
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CTaylorEvans@aol.com [mailto:CTaylorEvans@aol.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 6:35 AM
>To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
>Subject: Re: Do we need to revisit the Overview & Requirements document
>
>
>At the San Jose meeting David 'volunteered' to be the keeper of the
>requirements document and bring it up to date with all recent discussions.
>
>Best regards,
>Colleen