Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>
> OK, I derail.
>
> This should not be consider to be any thing negative by the project
> team (other than strange allusions to a potential Major release).
> This has just become too complex (not obvious) and too many differing
> views have been expressed (not non-controversial). It just ain't
> fast-track appropriate.
>
> See you in Presidio.
>
> - jek3
I spoke with Gary, the project team, a VP and other hanger-ons... Here
is the new, proposed process to get this case to close:
The case is now in "waiting need spec" (not running, not derailed).
The project team is going to spend a few days agreeing on some
fairly minor points.
When they are done, they will resubmit the specification and the
case will then be running (not derailed) with a new time-out (business
as usual).
The expectation of the recrafted specification is that...
1) It will not specify anything about a potential "major release".
2) It will restate a few points which seem to have caused
confusion and/or disagreement withing the project team.
3) It will probably (re)state a few points around what this
case is *not* about, because the mail trail has gone off tangent a few
times (who PSARC? Nah,... couldn't happen).
(Any corrections by the con-call attendees are welcome.)
- jek3
