My overall handwritten (hopefully to be transcribed soon) comments on section 2.1 are:
This needs to be shorter and crisper. it goes on too long, with too many random ideas of varying granularity, and leaves the reader with a muddled picture of where we're going and why.
I agree that we shouldn't throw away the requirements work. However, if reading our requirements doesn't nail it for me, how can we expect it to clarify things for others?
Ken
On Jun 18, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:
I would like to know if what we did on requirements has been forgotten, or is being ignored in this exercise.
If not, then the requirements (should) pretty much spell out what our mission is in the RA
Frank
On Jun 18, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:
Hi Folks,
I did, at least, get started, and I have attached the initial page. I figured I had better send this off lest I head down a blind alley.
Cheers,
Rex
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670
<SOA-RA-Purpose.doc>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
