Re: Email or Something Else

Its called "Functional Requirements" vs. "Technical Requirements"

-- 
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hadmut Danisch" <[email protected]>
To: "Keith Moore" <[email protected]>
Cc: "David W Morgan" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Email or Something Else


>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 10:25:38AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > ambitious, or too peripheral.   However by grouping the wishes together
> > to see how they apparently conflict we might be able to take a first
> > stab at writing "design goals" that try to capture the kinds of
> > compromise that seem appropriate.  (I still hesitate to use the word
> > "requirements" because I've too often seen that word be a hinderance to
> > that kind of compromise.)
>
>
>
> "Design goals" is a very good wording. If we find "requirements",
> everyone else will argue to have different "requirements" or that
> our "requirements" were wrong. In contrast, "design goals" are "our"
> goals and that's what we would use to design a protocol. Much less
> potential of conflict with other opinions. Much better. So let's use
> "design goals" instead of "requirements".
>
> regards
> Hadmut
>
>