I was referring more to the process of requirements capture that we
went through. I am completely open to editing section 2.1; and making
it snappier™.
Frank
On Jun 18, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
