tgf — archive

TGF v2 Review

From: Peter Brown <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:40:00 -0000

I’m good with this. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 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RE: [tgf] TGF v2 Review Suggested new final sentence: “Conversely, if policy products are poorly managed and/or out of date, then they can become significant constraints to effective change.”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: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ] 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:[email protected] ] 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: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ] 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: [email protected] www.millbeckconsulting.co.uk On 14 Nov 2013, at 10:44, Chris Parker < [email protected] > wrote: <TGF v2 Executive Summary v0.1.doc>