On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Scott Bosworth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
+1 - Dave >> 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) > > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net > >
