Sounds to me like there is an emerging consensus that we not take this up as a core workgroup or a core spec topic, for the various reasons already stated. I think that's fine, but we should recognize that we have a narrower and specific set of use cases/needs expressed by several CM workgroup members. I suggest that we push this topic back to the CM workgroup to decide actions they want/need to take and that the core workgroup stay appraised of progress they make in experimenting or spec'ing of CM specific approaches. Steve, does this make sense to you?
> From: Martin Nally/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > To: Nick Crossley/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: [email protected] > Date: 02/07/2011 06:07 PM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Attachments > Sent by: [email protected] > > To me this sounds like there is not a sufficiently compelling reason to > specify anything new, beyond perhaps explaining how Dave's non-design can > be applied to attachments. How would we poll the stakeholders to test that > assertion? > > Best regards, Martin > > Martin Nally, IBM Fellow > CTO and VP, IBM Rational > tel: +1 (714)472-2690 > > Scott Bosworth | IBM Rational CTO Team | [email protected] | 919.486.2197 (w) | 919.244.3387(m) | 919.254.5271(f)
