Repeat discussions waste time. Our review process is not very robust--a
lot of things slip through the cracks. Having a clear statement about the
problem, with advice on how to proceed, would be very helpful. Otherwise
every document that comes out is likely to choose a slightly different
approach (this is a phenomenon we see quite a bit). This document will
not prevent that from happening, but it will stop it being the default.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I actually don't worry that much about repeat discussions
unless they're likely to have, or have a history of having,
different outcomes. The main question I have when I look
at documents like this is the extent to which they'll solve
problems around making sure that our specifications are
sufficiently clear to implement from, and timely, and I'm
unconvinced that this will address either of those questions.
I'd like to think that our review processes are robust enough
to catch misuse.
Melinda