TGF v2 Review

+1 Regards Nig Nig Greenaway Fujitsu Fellow FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN
Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637

Internal: 7444 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: 
Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com
From:  [mailto:] On Behalf Of Peter F Brown Sent: 21 November 2013 17:40
To: Chris Parker; John Borras; 'Colin Wallis'
Cc: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF v2 Review I’m good with this.
From:  [ mailto: ] On Behalf Of Chris Parker Sent: Thursday, 21 November, 2013 09:39
To: John Borras; 'Colin Wallis'
Cc: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF v2 Review Suggested new final sentence: “Conversely, if policy products are poorly managed and/or out of date, then they can become significant constraints to effective change.” Chris Parker Managing Partner CS Transform Limited www.cstransform.com T: +44 7951 754060 F: +44 207 681 3908 Citizen Service Transformation
From:  [ mailto: ] On Behalf Of John Borras Sent: 18 November 2013 09:39
To: 'Colin Wallis'
Cc: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF v2 Review Just to be clear if we make the Exec Summary a Committee Note as is being proposed the question of normative doesn't come into play, everything is regarded as being non-normative. John
From: Colin Wallis [ mailto: ] Sent: 18 November 2013 01:03
To: 'Mark Woodward'; Chris Parker
Cc: John Borras; TGF TC List
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF v2 Review << My main question is whether including the conformance criteria is the right thing to do? As well as nearly doubling the length, it introduces new terms and concepts that haven't been explained.>> Fair point, but it is a standard after all so that is the essence of its raison d’etre. If we were to, say, move it to an appendix/annex we would want to be sure that that was normative, under OASIS rules.. Cheers Colin
From:  [ mailto: ] On Behalf Of Mark Woodward Sent: Saturday, 16 November 2013 7:45 a.m.
To: Chris Parker
Cc: John Borras; TGF TC List
Subject: Re: [tgf] TGF v2 Review Chris and John, I agree with Chris that this would be best as a separate document, there is much more chance of it being read by the target audience. I think Chris has taken a sound approach in assembling, and I agree that this will make keeping the document in line with the Framework itself much easier. As a result the only suggestion I've made in the attached version is to merge and reduce two paragraphs into one, see what you think (it also removes another one of those errant references to cities). My main question is whether including the conformance criteria is the right thing to do? As well as nearly doubling the length, it introduces new terms and concepts that haven't been explained. Regards, Mark Mark Woodward Mill Beck Consulting Limited
Tel: +44 (0) 7788 414553

Email:  www.millbeckconsulting.co.uk On 14 Nov 2013, at 10:44, Chris Parker < 
> wrote: <TGF v2 Executive Summary v0.1.doc> Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS)

Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together Fujitsu .
This email is only for the use of its intended recipient.
Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged.
Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.
Fujitsu (FTS)

Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.
PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE.
Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.