Lists Home |
Date Index |
Something that only a handful of people understand is not
likely to need a standard. It likely means the approach to
an existing technology that has been applied is not likely to
be a widely useful approach, rather, it is a specification
for an exotic or obscure technology.
Separate specifications from standards cleanly.
From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Rather, at the end of 2 years, if you hadn't finished it, you would hand
it on to someone else. The groups don't need a 2 year life, just the
members. (The practical result would perhaps be that really long projects
would make their deadline within two years, then recharter with the same
members under another name. But at least there would be a different
dynamic for implementable, finished layers, rather than 5-year monoliths.
If a standard-in-progress is so tricky that only a handful of people
really understand what it is about, that is not a reason to keep them
active longer in order to finish the masterpiece, it should be a red flag
that something is wrong IMHO. The world is full of cooperative, smart