Road-map proposal


Here is the road-map that I would like to propose for how
we will progress forward:

1. Start-up:
	This includes mail alias setup, chair picked, charter
	agreed upon, home page set up, hypermail archive
	configured, etc.  While the hypermail archive is
	still being worked on, this phase is basically done.

2. Scenerios:
	I've mailed in a few scenerios already, but I think
	we will need a few more.  The purpose of the scenerios
	is to help firm up problem space being worked on.
	Scenerios can also be used as examples of traps
	*not* to fall in.

3. Issues:
	This is the first phase of the design.
	Here we try to narrow down the solution space by
	trying to be careful about the issues we need to
	deal with.  This is were we get careful about writing
	down our assumptions (e.g. how big are annotation
	sets allowed to be.)  Also, we get careful about
	specifying what limitations we are willing to accept.
	Some examples: scaling, security, firewalls, etc.
	Some issues have already come up.

4. Proposals:
	This is the second phase of the design.  Individuals
	will write up specific proposals for portions of the
	overall protocol identified in the previous step.
	Hopefully, concensus on each proposal will emerge
	from the ensuing discussion.

5. Prototyping:
	Personally, I think working code is one of the best
	ways to find flaws in a protocol spec.  I think other
	members of the group feel the same way.

6. Final Spec.
	The final spec. is written up and submitted to W3C
	along with any prototype code.

As a matter of philosophy, I do not belive in firm boundares
between each of these steps.  If we are at step 5, and a
new scenerio comes in, that is fine by me.  More frequently,
I think we'll be at two steps at the same time (e.g. steps 3
and 4.)

Does anybody want propose additional steps?  How about adding
changing some wording to any of the steps?  Ultimately, this
is *our* road-map, not *my* road-map.  Comments/suggestions?