Architecting essentially has a client. The client keeps the focus and the stakeholders are oriented towards that. IEEE 1471-2000e. A systems architect, such as involved in software, inevitably leads to development but the design is architectural and not action or non-actions. Architects have their actions and developers have theirs.
I think that the original vision needs to be revisited and River needs to see if that vision has been realized or not. There might be no point in going further. Further and further and further is not the point. The point today is what is the point? On Feb 13, 2011, at 1:39 PM, Calum Shaw-Mackay wrote: > On 13 February 2011 21:11, MICHAEL MCGRADY > <mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com>wrote: > >> Architecting and developing are such different activities. >> >> > Agreed, but ultimately in architecting, a decision has to be reached, one > that may well lead to development; you can't forever talk about an issue and > not resolve it, similarly you shouldn't reach a resolution that requires > actions to be taken, without taking those actions, or at least planning to > take those actions. My point is that River should not completely stay in the > area of developing for the now, at the expense of the future, rather that > there should be some consideration given to what areas we want to > concentrate on for 2.2, 2.3 and even 3.0 whatever those might be. > > --Calum Michael McGrady Chief Architect Topia Technology, Inc. Cel 1.253.720.3365 Work 1.253.572.9712 extension 2037 mmcgr...@topiatechnology.com
