Collaboration Requirements

[Greg Smith]

Hi Martin,

OK, I can use RFC style language instead of my "must" and "should" 
definitions if that helps us communicate better. I'm not up to full RFC 
format but I can try to get as close as needed.

I don't see "must/should/nice to have" defined in this link:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2223.txt

Did I miss it or do you have a link the definitions you want to use handy?

Thanks,

Greg S


Martin Langhoff wrote:
> n Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Greg Smith <gregsmitholpc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> First Michael:
>>  > This feels very similar to an RFC.
>>
>> GS - Its not meant to be an RFC
> 
> I think Michael was just suggesting a time-saving device: you defined
> "should", "must", etc, and there's a common standard for that kind of
> verbiage that is used in RFCs. I think it's a good timesaver - all
> technical ppl around here know about the RFC convention :-)
> 
>>  > We're actually on the trailing edge of collaboration technology
> 
> And I think you're *both* exaggerating, and being leading edge doesn't
> matter that much. We want collab that is useful in education. We are
> trailing our own expectations, and we'd like to do better.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> 
> m