--Matthew Elvey <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> wrote:
2)A major failure of , e.g. the MARID WG (including the Chairs) was the
failure to encourage/require a cost (in the broadest sense of the term)
analysis of the proposals. This scheme fails to encourage that too.
Instead it just says "the working group chair(s) should also make an
explicit call for consensus, summarizing the technical issues and the
choice to be made."
Cost analysis is not a technical issue. (But I hope it's in MARID's new
charter if it gets re-chartered! (Anyone pushing for that?))
A minor note, but worth noting. Cost may not be a "technical" issue but it
is certainly an "engineering" issue! Some software engineers with little
hardware experience might dismiss cost as an issue, but they can check with
their colleagues (such as hardware engineers, mechanical engineers, etc) if
they have ever been asked to design something without regard for the cost.
Even "legal" or "IPR" issues can be a real-world cost, or a significant
barrier to adoption, if not a dollar amount. Designing something in a
vacuum to see if it works in the lab, without concern for implementation
issues, is fun "science" but horrible "engineering".
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>