RE: The Overview & Requirements Spec is TOAST ??

[Nicholas Kassem <Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com>]

Got it. Thanks.

Regards,
Nick

p.s. I think it would help to think of the requirements doc as a set of 
guideposts to help keep us all on track as opposed to having it be a stick 
to beat all the creative folks with. IMHO.

At 01:45 PM 8/31/2000 -0700, David Burdett wrote:
>Nick
>
>I may have gone over the top, but I wanted to draw attention to the fact
>that we have a set of requirements and basically we are not using them as a
>point of reference in any of the work that we do. As a result we are
>spending a lot of time debating issues which is not very productive.
>
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nicholas Kassem [mailto:nick.kassem@eng.sun.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 3:31 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