Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> My first question is who the parenthetical (we) in the above is.
In this context, "we" is "the project team, who is signed up
(and competent) to do the work and the ARC which will try to
ensure that the right work is actually done".
Nothing at all to do with who pays or who decides, but on
the step that follows after *someone* devotes resources with
the intent to do so...
> Isn't there something missing in the proposed taxonomy?
Probably - I ignored the whole "how do we pick *which* FTP we
want to integrate or aggregate" decision under the assumption
that first come, first served. I didn't want to confuse things
with Stephen's "preferred" concept.
> I can't fit these other ftp implementations as "Prototype" either.
I forsaw Prototype being used when "we" wish to make a new version
of an already "Integrated" something available before its ARC review
has started/been completed.
> suggest another set of levels:
>
> Integrated - as is
> Preferred - they matter a lot,
> Aggregated - Just as "cool and mature", but not "preferred".
> Other - I just can't see a significant reason
> All in all, I think we need to examine what "matter a lot" means.
This seems to mix together the "how much effort do I wish to spend"
and the "what does it take to join the exclusive country club"
questions - similar, but not really the same thing...
Besides, wouldn't Integrated things be more preferred than Preferred
things?
-John
