[27] in Kakapo Windows Team
Re: Meeting tomorrow, I presume? + Agenda suggestions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kerem B Limon)
Wed Jul 9 16:41:08 2003
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030709163741.07ec9530@hesiod>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 16:41:02 -0400
To: Jonathon Weiss <jweiss@mit.edu>
From: Kerem B Limon <kerem.limon@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Kerem B Limon <kerem.limon@mit.edu>, Kakapos at MIT <kakapo@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200307092026.h69KQwPj008064@station-10.events.itd.umich.ed
u>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 03/07/09 16:26 Wednesday, Jonathon Weiss wrote:
> > 1) On handling container requests and tracking them: We had a short
> > discussion on this last time we met, and there was some discussion as to
> > whether Ops would/could use CaseTracker, which seems to be the tool of
> > choice from the win.mit.edu and DART side. I would like to vote for
> > CaseTracker, however, I'd also like to understand and be mindful of
> > Jonathon's team and their procedures, since this task seems to be shifting
> > to their area.
>
>Unfortunately, I'm out of town this week, and next, and for the
>obviously reason, would like to be around for this discussion. Is
>this something we can postpone fore a couple of weeks or is it really
>urgent that a decision is made right away? I gather it's the former.
>It would be useful to me if someone could explain to me what people
>hope to get by using casetracker, so I have a better idea of what the
>requirements are. I think I got part of this at the meeting two weeks
>ago, but don't feel like I have a full handle on it.
I would be comfortable with shelving this until a bit later, though we
should move on it as soon as you can rejoin us. I am primarily concerned
about the rest of us hearking your (and Ops') position accurately and
understanding it. Perhaps I can gather thoughts from the proponents of
using CaseTracker and summarize for you and all to see, making it easier
for you to consider and respond to. Would that make sense?
>I also wouldn't mind an oppertunity to confirm that everyone expects
>that container request processing is something that my group is
>picking up. It has long been my expectation that this would be the
>case, but I know other people have had other expectations, and I don't
>know if that's been totally resolved.
That definitely is my recollection and understanding, at least as far as
the receipt of requests, processing, and notification of the requester
goes. I think, though, we are not collectively clear on the
authorization/approval part of the process, hence my earlier e-mail and
suggestions.
> Jonathon
Thanks!
Kerem
