| Unfortunately, I was not able to join this call. I have reviewed the email below and the minutes and have the following input:
1.) I agree with Tuncer that an aggressive schedule is good.
1.) I agree with Paivi that contributions tied tot he architecture is a good way forward. I am currently working in that fashion. I am using the following architecture: Discovery; Connection; Algorithm. I am currently working on a contribution on Discovery which I hope to be able to make soon.
Mark Mark Cummings, Ph.D. +1 650 854 4406 348 Camino al Lago Atherton, Ca. 94027
Managing Partner, enVia Technology Partners, Inc. Special Member Board of Directors SVC Wireless (Silicon Valley China Wireless Technology Association) Member Special Committee, Technical Committee of Software Radio, IEICE, Japan
On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Paivi Ruuska wrote: Hi all, The process ad-hoc teleconference minutes is uploaded (DCN 19-10-0018-00-0001). I tried to catching the relevant discussions in minutes and did not have much chance to unmute myself. Anyway good discussions and just few thoughts from me below: I felt that the problem for many about process discussions was that it is not clear what kind of proposals are needed, and what actually is full and what is partial proposal. That may become clearer when we have common understanding on what the high level architecture should look like. Perhaps we should somehow try to tie the proposals to high level architecture, e.g. ask proposals for different elements/features related to architecture (which we will agree in SDD). If there is more than one proposal per element/feature then we need to select/vote one or if possible work together to combine proposals into one. This way the baseline for full-proposal is the high level architecture, and everyone is free to contribute partial proposals for any elements. Contributing to all would be the same as full proposal. There seemed to be also some concerns about splitting the group in different camps. And I think the purpose of the proposed straw polls (instead of votes) was to decrease the disagreement while creating the complete proposal. If I understood process proposal correctly, the idea was to create and present proposals and then work together offline towards more complete full solution (with the parties which proposals you like or which have been supportive to you in straw polls). Which is good if everybody kind of likes everybody’s proposals and we end up working towards one complete solution as a group. My concern is that if we end up having 2 or more full proposals with about equal amount of supporters, we may never get 75% approval for any of the full proposals inside the group. Also working at the same time towards more than one complete solution splits the resources of the group which is not good unless the group has excess amount of resources. Kind Regards, Päivi
|