Personally, I would object to including that effort in the report.
While I laud your efforts to try to pull things together. I personally
find many of the distinctions ineffective or misleading. The text
itself is not wrong (generally), but I find it sufficiently unhelpful
that I have not tried to analyze it for accuracy.
Also, as those constraints were not adopted by the working group, and
were not adopted by the proposers of the various approaches, including
it in a survey of our work would not help the reader in any significant
fashion.
Yours,
Joel
http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/
has been fine-tuned as a result of
considerable RRG discussion. As far as I
know no-one objects to this attempt to
express the real constraints we are
operating within. Quite a few people
expressed their support for this attempt -
though of course we all wish there were no
such constraints.
I suggest that we work on a version of this
to be included in the RRG Report, which
the co-chairs will hopefully be able able
to find rough consensus support for.
Could the Report include a section near
the front classifying the proposals into
various groups?
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
