[unrev-II] Requirements, 0.9

From: Eric Armstrong (eric.armstrong@eng.sun.com)
Date: Wed Jun 14 2000 - 14:00:53 PDT

  • Next message: Bill Bearden: "[unrev-II] Knowledge Management & Philosophy, ..."

    Version 0.9 of the requirements document is now up
    at my web site.

    Here are the changes to version 0.9
      * Reformatting and linking, minor edits.
      * Improved the picture of development-document cycles.
      * Appended a new paragraph to "Partionable"

    Next, I need to look at Wiki version Lee sent a pointer to,
    and see what the process is for making changes there, and
    get things sync'd up.

    Thoughts on Using the Wiki system:
    One way of using the Wiki version might be as a comment
    tool. People would not expect to edit the file directly,
    but would offer either comments or suggestions, evaluations
    and selections putting their name in each paragraph.

    So I might add this to someone else's document:
       [eric] Here are my thoughts....

    Here again, we "play DKR" by doing the attribution ourselves
    instead of having it be automatic. And we indent our additions
    manually, instead of "replying" to a node and having that happen
    automatically. But it's a start.

    Note this procedure is going to require a very disciplined
    approach to our commentary. We need to start moving in an IBIS
    kind of direction. For example, each requirement is, in effect,
    a "possibility" for the system. So each requirement should see
    these kinds of additions:
      * Evaluations (this is brilliant / this is dumb)
      * Votes (need this right away / need to defer this)
      * Rationale (functionality needed / hard to add later)
      * Comments (just some notes)
      * Arguments (pro/con)
      * Questions (why? where? when?)
      * Additions (you forgot this one, dummy...)
      * Suggestions (I would say it this way...)

    Ideally, we should be able to come up with a convention for
    identifying notes using categories, in the spirit of playing
    with a "manual DKR". We lose much of the potential benefits of
    sorting and searching, but we get to taste the flavor of the
    proposed system.

    The tricky bit comes when a new version is created. The
    document author needs to integrate and summarize comments.
    Of course, linking to the old comments from the new
    version would be burdensome. But linking to the old version
    of the document from the new version should be reasonable.
    If the number of comments is large, this process gets to
    be big. But that is probably the way the system needs to
    work anyway, with new versions coming out every so often
    until the document is "frozen" and no more comments are

    Take your development to new heights. Work with clients like Dell and
    pcOrder. Submit your resume to jobs@liaison.com. Visit us at

    Community email addresses:
      Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
      Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
      Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
      List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 14 2000 - 14:08:00 PDT