ISSUE-22: Defining CR exit criteria

[Dan Burnett] At today\'s teleconference, we considered requiring two
implementations for each required feature, where two \"intend to implement\"
reports can count as one real implementation. We still need to determine
objective criteria for removal of features. We also need to discuss whether/how
to demonstrate interoperability.

Resolved that required features will need at least two implemntations, while
optional features will need at least one implementation, where two intents to
implement are equivalent to one implementation.

2006-10-18: [Jerry] We propose requiring two implementations for each required
feature and one for each optional feature. We will also count statements of
\'intent to implement\' by each vendor as 1/2 an implementation. We propose that
implementation declarations be made publically (i.e. to the public list) where
as statements of \'intent to implement\' may be sent to the team contact for the
group who will collate these reports for inclusion in the public Implementation
Report document. In this way \'intent to implement\' may be made anonomously if a
vendor wishes.

Discussed in detail and resolved to following:

We propose requiring two implementations for each required
feature and one for each optional feature. We will also count statements of
\'intent to implement\' by each vendor as 1/2 an implementation. We propose that
implementation declarations be made publically (i.e. to the public list) where
as statements of \'intent to implement\' may be sent to the team contact for the
group who will collate these reports for inclusion in the public Implementation
Report document. In this way \'intent to implement\' may be made anonomously if a
vendor wishes.