At 16:46 3/29/2001 -0500, Markus Hofmann wrote:
Hilarie,
> I agree with the previous comments
> that it looks strange to have this in
> a charter. It's normal to develop
> requirements and evaluate solutions
> against the requirements.
Isn't that what the charter says? iCAP is existing work that will be
evaluated against the requirements. The chartes does NOT imply that
iCAP will automatically be the proposed solution. I'd say it's
absolutley legitimate to name in the charter existing work that will
be considered within the group. That's all the charter says, and I
believe it's ok to list work items and goals in the charter.
I think part of the issue is the charter saying "we *might* do this".
The charter should be saying what the group *will* do. Not what it may or
may not do at some point in the future.
Certainly discuss iCAP within the group, but if no firm decision has been
made about its position to the work items, don't mention it specifically in
the text at this point. The only possible exception would be if it was to
be published as Informational or Experimental, and to then get experience
with which to build something else (either v2 or something completely
different).