Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Hi gang,
Okay, okay, I'm exaggerating. Its real cool there's people volunteering to write all this stuff, and the drafts are not *that* formal. I'm just suggesting we make it easy for ourselves and don't try to write "perfect" and "waterproof" docs. We just need "good enough".
back to my corner!
:>. But I'll bite. It's because you might be clear, the PMC might be clear and the board might be clear on what incubation is, but it is still truly astounding how much argument can be generated *every time* a project comes into incubation over items that should be simple and easy, and that everyone has agreed on in the past!
I've also been involved in standard review processes in other lives, and it also amazing (but understandable) how much bitterness and heat can be generated by different projects/products following different review paths. If we document the requirements as we create them then firstly it's easier for those on the PMC down the track, and secondly there is something that everyone can point to and say "this is what was done in the past".
It's almost due-diligence on behalf of the incubator. It has been given a task by the board. How can it show it is performing that task adequately in each case if it cannot go back to a normative reference?
Well said!
Steve.
Cheers, Berin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
