Folks So sorry I could not join you in London 2 weeks ago.
But I have finally stopped travelling and started on the backlog of email etc.
Two things I want to alert the TC to:
1) A senior manager in my organisation has finally actually read the draft doc and overall, is saying complimentary things about it.
This is good news and I get a sense (remote from the fray as I am) that there is momentum slowly building to begin to take it on board and implement it.
That may be a few months away yet, but I sense it.
2) There are a range of comments to come in.
they are being prepared as I type this.
I have a sense of some of these.
Most of them relate to inconsistent depth of treatment.
.introducing a concept but moving too much into 'solution' mode thereby restricting the wiggle room to implement the spec 'jurisdiction-specific' with whatever tensions, shortcomings, politics, culture etc that may apply.
I'm letting you know about this now since the comment deadline is tomorrow and I want to be sure these are included (just in case the formal response does not make it in time).
Examples given are: A) Franchise marketplace/model (right idea, but too solution specific), too big a bite, genericise it.
B) Pattern 12 ('brand-led') considered an overloaded term, and perhaps better sub-setted into a more generic term for the whole suite of components should be something like 'Service Design and Delivery' (again given as an example where the concept is good, but is pushed too far to a specific solution), C) 'One-stop-shop' also regarded as too solution specific and easily mis-interpreted as requiring some portal design, when various apps could reside of end user devices.
'Seamless' was offered as a better more generic descriptor.
All of the above were seen as impediments to adoption (more to misinterpretation than conceptual disagreement), and not enough recognition of the other (non citizen focussed dynamics) at work.
.the 3 way tension between agencies, users, and the crown/federal.
The holistic 'sweet spot' was the place where all 3 are optimised, and feeling was that we had optimised for 2 - users and the central government - but not all 3.
Other inconsistencies were brought up, namely: D) 'Product Mgt' in the Framework core patterns but not in the Primer, E) CSF's in the framework in a different order than in the Primer (i.e. they should be brought up to be under Guiding Principles in the Framework core patterns (I can foresee this possibly screwing up the pattern however)
Interestingly, I saw a table being prepared that had a column for the Conformance statements, mapped to a column that pulled pattern solution statements after 'therefore'.
.
so you could see that the idea was to add in existing capabilities, to determine where the gaps were that would affect conformance.
I suspect that our folks may need a teleconference with the editors and Chair sometime in the next 10 days.
.
Anyway, FWIW....
Cheers Colin
