[iot-discussion] Proto-charter for IoT working group
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-discussion] Proto-charter for IoT working group
- Next message (by thread): [iot-discussion] Proto-charter for IoT working group
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gordon Lennox
gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com
Wed May 10 15:20:41 CEST 2017
> ... that doesn't need to be addressed right now. > In this case perfect might once again be the enemy of good. If we don't move quickly enough, we might find that things have moved on without us. > In other words, we shouldn’t spend more man-hours obsessing over details in the prospective charter than some IoT vendors spend creating their s/w update process. So no time to plan, no time to specify! Get coding! We can patch later! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. To be clear: I spoke in favour of creating a WG yesterday. I have not changed my mind! But I would appreciate some clarifications from the proto-chairs - Marco? Eliot? Anna? Jim? - on how they see the time-line/objectives going forward. So what is sought on Friday? What is expected at 75? How do we work between until then? Thanks, Gordon
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-discussion] Proto-charter for IoT working group
- Next message (by thread): [iot-discussion] Proto-charter for IoT working group
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ iot-wg Archives ]