Collaboration Requirements

[Morgan Collett]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 15:43, Greg Smith <gregsmitholpc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html

Regards
Morgan

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>