[cgl_discussion] Words in requirements

Mika Kukkonen mika at osdl.org
Tue Oct 1 09:29:55 PDT 2002

On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 19:13, Gustafson, Geoffrey R wrote:
> Another twist might be to define in the beginning of the document what we
> mean by 'Distribution', for example: Throughout this document, the term
> <i>Distribution</i> will be used to mean a Linux distribution implementing
> [attempting to meet, based on, compliant with...] this OSDL CGL Requirements
> Specification.
> Then for the rest of the document, we can simply say:
> A [or The] Distribution shall provide ...
> The capital 'D' helps indicate we're talking about a special defined term.

I am sorry, but I think this proposal has no chance of passing marketing
and steering.

> Not to spark unnecessary combat, but I think "compliance" is drastically
> different from the scary term "certification". After all, we're knee deep in
> the scary term "requirement" -- if something is "required", I think it
> implies an implementation has to aim at "compliance". But if we can agree on
> a substitute, fine with me.

OK, I gave this some extra thought, and consulted OSDL marketing, and I
think it is OK to use "The OSDL CGL compliant distribution" as the text
for 1.1 specs. Some marketing people will probably be unhappy about
that, but we have to call it something. And like Geoff says above, I
think having a word "requirement" does kind of imply "compliance" is
needed. Calling out our reference implementation in our specs will just
confuse marketing people more, as they read "reference implementation"
= "distribution".


More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list