Hi Josh, Here is what I would rather not have happen: we do an update on Moonshot / implementation AND THEN repeat the same issues in document review (or visa versa). So long as that doesn't happen, talking about running code is a good thing.
Eliot On 3/8/11 12:20 PM, Josh Howlett wrote: > Klaas, > >>> Thanks for pulling this together. However I'm wondering if it's >>> really necessary to devote nearly 50% of the first session to >>> discussion of an ABFAB implementation. I would be more inclined to >>> spend this time on discussion of the architecture and use-case >>> documents. >> Well, one way of saying it is "nearly 50%", the other is "only 25 >> minutes" ;-) Do you really think you can do with much less than that? > Well, I'm questioning whether a Moonshot update is appropriate given the > demands on time. > > We would be very happy to do an update, but I wouldn't want to consume time > that could be better spent discussing ABFAB documents. > > Do Eliot and Rhys, as editors of the other two documents, have a view on > this? I was assuming that discussion of these two docs alone could take 60 > minutes, but perhaps not. > > Josh. > > > > JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited > by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 > and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, > Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG > > _______________________________________________ > abfab mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab > _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
