Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Talk:WTP Requirements Main"

(New page: At a glance, I think dates are a bit too aggressive. Offhand, I'm thinking they should be offset 2, 3 or 4 weeks. At "end" of schedule, instead of saying 'final' document in August/Septe...)
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
At a glance, I think dates are a bit too aggressive. Offhand, I'm thinking they should be offset 2, 3 or 4 weeks.  
+
<del>At a glance, I think dates are a bit too aggressive. Offhand, I'm thinking they should be offset 2, 3 or 4 weeks.</del>
  
 
At "end" of schedule, instead of saying 'final' document in August/September, I'd say "Initial Version", or similar. Then, I think we should schedule periodic reviews and updates. Is initial week of every milestone too much?
 
At "end" of schedule, instead of saying 'final' document in August/September, I'd say "Initial Version", or similar. Then, I think we should schedule periodic reviews and updates. Is initial week of every milestone too much?
 +
 +
:At 6/26 meeting we agreed, the dates are not too aggressive, as long as it's clear we will iterate, say, every milestone. It'd be good to get a concrete stack in the ground.

Latest revision as of 20:50, 26 June 2007

At a glance, I think dates are a bit too aggressive. Offhand, I'm thinking they should be offset 2, 3 or 4 weeks.

At "end" of schedule, instead of saying 'final' document in August/September, I'd say "Initial Version", or similar. Then, I think we should schedule periodic reviews and updates. Is initial week of every milestone too much?

At 6/26 meeting we agreed, the dates are not too aggressive, as long as it's clear we will iterate, say, every milestone. It'd be good to get a concrete stack in the ground.