Proposed Ballots for Issue Groups 6, 7, 8, 9

Attached are the proposed ballots for issue groups 6, 7, 8, and
9. Please try to review these and get comments in before Friday, so
that they can be part of our vote next Tuesday.

Particular issues that I think need attention are
[UC-9-02:PrivacyStatement] and [UC-9-01:RuntimePrivacy]. UC-9-02 has
several different possible statements that could be added to the use
case and requirements document. I think it would be good to get some
consensus around -one- statement, so that we can vote on that one,
rather than splitting votes between the three.

UC-9-01 also has some overlap with UC-9-02. It would be contradictory
to add [CR-9-01:RuntimePrivacy] and also a requirement from UC-9-02
that requires runtime privacy.

Also, group 8 may be somewhat confusing. I think that the scenario in
[UC-8-02:IntermediaryAdd] is probably useful and would probably be
common for systems that use intermediaries. However, the ones in
[UC-8-03:IntermediaryDelete] and [UC-8-04:IntermediaryEdit] may be
somewhat problematic and less useful. [UC-8-05:AtomicAssertions] tries
to rationalize this problem with an explicit non-goal.

One last point: I'm a little concerned about burdening the
intermediary issues with B2B significance. I'd like to change the
scenarios to use another real-world model, but right now the best I
can come up with is on-line dating. B-) Any suggestions as to a
different model that would make sense to illustrate intermediaries but
that does not use "B2B Exchange," "Buyer" and "Seller" would be
helpful.

Thanks for your attention and patience,

~ESP