Re: PROPOSAL: UISG Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 3

[Tim <hairball ibm net>]

Bowie Poag wrote:
> 
> Ok, folks.. Comes down to this. Everything else worthy of debate has been
> decided. I've spoken with Tom privately in email about this one, and i'm
> prepared to conceed my stand on this issue, and fall in line with the
> popular concensus.......despite the fact that I still dont think its such
> a good idea.. ;)
> 
>  o The UISG now proposes that the Compliancy Levels be listed from 1-5,
>    with HIGHEST esteem given to Level 5, and lowest given to Level 1.
>    In plain english, crappy apps which meet few requirements are listed
>    as Level 1 Compliant, fantastic apps with all the trimmings, bells and
>    whistles are said to be "Level 5 Compliant"
> 
>  o Shorthand for the levels: "G5 Compliant" or "GC5 Compliant"?
>    LEts hear some opinions on either one - Its up for grabs. The
>    consensus appears to be evenly divided between both. I
>    personally prefer "GC" to "G".
> 
> Agree or Disagree?
> 
> +--------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Bowie J. Poag  bjp@primenet.com  http://www.nubox.dyn.ml.org |
> | Sand and grit in a concrete base.                            |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------+
> 
> --
   I agree strongly that they should go from 1 to 5 with 5 being the
most compliant.  This allows for a little more open-endedness for the
future.  Who knows, level 6 could control your digital house and level 7
could launch the space shuttle. ;-)
-- 

Tim
-----
Oft-times it is easier to die for a cause than to live for one.
-----