| Although I generally tend to agree with your view, I do
| think that we
| need let everyone present their opinions and evaluate
| them.
I fully endorse this. But the implication of drafting full blown
proposals for each alternative is not one where you, as a manager,
set yourself up for success. You instantly make it competitive and
not collaborative.
Ok, I think I have misunderstood you, or the other way around. I am not
suggesting that we draft full blown solutions for each alternative. I
think we need to have them all up for review and that we need to have
enough meat on the bones to be able to make a judgment. Exactly what
those are is still to be decided but should somehow me in the
milestones IMO.
| You and me
| have a certain view of where to go, maybe that is where we
| will end up
| eventually (of-course I hope so), but in order to start
| working on one
| single solution we need to have a consensus saying that is
| where we
| want to go. And we wont get there unless we have looked at the
| alternatives thoroughly.
Then we should apply good engineering practices (see problem
statement WG) and bound the problem, partition the solution space
and discuss the high level approaches. Only after we have consensus
should we be pushing down into more details.
| I have no problem with loading the chairs (I guess Sean
| will give me a
| hard time for this...:) ) if that brings us forward, and I
| think you
| are right, but I think we need to do some other steps first.
Ok, what and when?
My personal view is (not discussed with my co-chair or the ADs in any
greater length yet) that we need to a) Get the 'requirements' document
shipped, B) We need to determine what solutions categories we want to
look at c) We need to determine to what level of detail we want these
solutions worked out d) We need to get the results of b) and c) into
the WG charter and update the dates of the milestones e) we need to
agree on what solution is to be worked out in more detailed