[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Ampu-dev] another cut at context statement

From: alfred . differ
Subject: [Ampu-dev] another cut at context statement
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:29:44 -0500

Here for your fun and pleasure is another cut at the context statement.  I
took the last one and recast some of the verbs a bit.
I also made a few changes to make it sound more formal and tight.  Otherwise, 
it essentially is the same.

In case you think I am being too nit picky....  8)
My understanding of context statements says the application to be built should 
be referred to in the future tense while
the current one can use the present tense.  There is no current AMPU, so that 
explains the verb changes.

For the formalization and tightness changes...well... I guess I am being 
needlessly picky.  8)

If you all can understand what we are going to code from a very high level 
(stratosphere?), then these paragraphs are doing their job.
If not, they need some work.  Remember that they are not supposed to get into 
technical details.  Imagine you are explaining what you
want to do to the CEO.  They usually aren't technically competent.


AMPU Requirements Specification - 'A Case Study'
We are intent on developing a tool for the support of direct decision making by
large populations for a open-ended range of issues. This tool will enable users
to create new decisions to be made, express an interest in existing ones, and
vote on them when the time comes. This tool will support decisions to be made
via direct democracy and through a representative system using juries directly
chosen to make them. The tool will maintain a library of decisions, supporting
documents. It will also maintain the relationships between decisions, the groups
making them, and other related decisions.
When a user first conceives of a choice to be made, they create an initial
summary of the issue, adding documentary evidence if necessary. Any possible
solutions can be added at this time, along with any further documentary evidence
to support the argument for or against that particular solution.
The next step after summarization is for a jury to be created by a method
commonly accepted by the interest group. Jury members are then given the chance
to debate these issues, and/or request further information, such as related
issue documents and field studies. Eventually, the jury's decision and solution
tasks (if any) will be reported back to the interest group which originally
raised that issue, and the results of the decision will be made public.
If any tasks were specified to implement the preferred solution, then a new
working group referred to as a taskforce will be created to ensure fulfilment
of that decision. Methods of selecting workers for the taskforce (such as
volunteering or contracting) would be chosen by the interest group. Taskforces
would have full access to any decision and solution documents created for their
use.  Should any issue stall the taskforce, it will report back to the interest
group which initiated it.
Throughout the system, information and communication will be managed in such a
way that it can be shared among different interest groups. As an example,
building construction interest groups would have easy access to regulations
created by building codes and standards groups. It will be possible to override
related rules and information, so an interest group may mostly follow
established standards while deviating from them where necessary. Similarly, it
will be possible to enforce certain documents for all groups, providing a direct
way of enforcing control, should it be deemed necessary by an encompassing
interest group.
Information within the system will be automatically stored, cross-referenced,
and archived. Therefore, all past decisions and precedents will be easily
retrieved, as can any information required to make a future decision or simply
discuss an issue.
Documents can be tracked through their various revisions via a complete audit
trail, so that information deleted from the current document can easily be
proved to exist at a particular point in time. All editing is logged, including
the date, the editor, and the nature of the editing.
Likewise, it will be simplicity itself to amend or superseed documents as a
result of new decisions. Every individual or group who relied on the original
document will automatically gain access to the updated copy.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]