再保险:CVE程序优先级

艺术,我了解关于过早的重点讨论的解决方案——意图的实现可以排除或模糊better-inspired视角。然而,我发现一个评论在你提供的链接,通过“评论作者:Eddieosh”相共鸣的我。我相信将是富有成效的和有用的”写下的解决方案(而不是被他们转移或试图蝙蝠他们走),用它们来帮助检查问题更多,然后继续,直到你有足够的信息来做出有用的判断您生成的解决方案”。我也想表明,多个迭代的“用例、问题解决方案”可能是必要的。所需的CVE似乎是许多不同的过程,不同的人正试图完成,然而在不同的方面和不同的需求。那些是你的用例。我们怎么能知道所有的用例都被捕,并正确地捕获?实际上我们试图建立一个系统的概念模型的过程。比较模型,现实是一个至关重要的一步。我认为讨论和批评可能的解决方案的活动有助于建立概念模型和验证。 This can create corrections to use cases or the identification of new ones, or a change in the perception of problems. Certainly the order you are proposing, "use cases, problems, solutions", is logical and should determine the final justification for actions. However, in arriving to the correct and complete (to the best of our abilities) list of use cases, problems, and solutions, I believe that an iterative process or loops may be beneficial. I'm glad you mentioned "work leading up to the meeting". I think there hasn't been enough for a meeting to produce a list of actionable recommendations or resolutions. Deciding on a date and duration seems premature when so little of this work has been done, unless having a deadline is a necessary motivating factor. Pascal On 01/29/2016 04:46 PM, Art Manion wrote: > On 2015-12-29 14:56, Art Manion wrote: >> I'd like to suggest a step back (or possibly up) and ask if the Board >> (and other interested parties?) would be willing to focus first on >> problems/issues with CVE before getting into solutions. >> >> "Do not propose solutions until the problem has been discussed as >> thoroughly as possible without suggesting any." >> >>http://lesswrong.com/lw/ka/hold_off_on_proposing_solutions/> >给了它更多的思想,和希望我们将召集>一个面对面的会议,我想进一步退一步我会>所说的用例。> > CVE用于什么,由谁,以及如何?> >有一个以上的答案,也有可能是一个“当”>(用例随时间变化),我们可能不知道的所有用例或>能够预测未来的。尽管如此,有一些想法(和>协议)CVE是什么使得>实际有意义的讨论问题。有问题,有一个(可能认为)>使用没有得到满足。> >用例,问题,解决方案是我提议,这>应该框架我们面对面的会议,甚至导致工作会议。> >问候,> >艺术> > PS,如果你认为我是一个螺母的过程,我真的没有。但我看过>足够复杂,多方讨论知道没有一些>过程/框架,我们所有的旋转轮子。>