On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:54 AM, John Plocher <John.Plocher at sun.com> wrote: > Peter Tribble wrote: >> > > I think we are trying to say similar things.
I think we are. I'm trying to put it in a way I find natural to make sure that there isn't some nuance of your phrasing IGs ought to be a good place to find architects. > > Oops? :-) Good catch. >of the problem that is actually different. >>> The ARC Community >>> A "special" CG where the CONTRIBUTERS are defined to be >>> the ARCHITECTS from the various COMPONENTS and PROJECTS. >> >> Is this the existing ARC(s)? > > Not really... Ah. Please expand... >> If the ARC exists at that level, then there's something missing. While >> the ARC ensures that what we do is done right, it doesn't define what we >> do. Where is the part of the organization that decides what we should >> work on? > > The COMPONENT CG that is responsible for the thing that is being developed. Well, no. That's tactical - where's the strategy coming from? -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
