Re: CVE program priorities

[Pascal Meunier <pmeunier@cerias.purdue.edu>]

Art,
	I understand the point about how the premature discussion of solutions 
- with an intent to implement - can preclude or obscure a 
better-inspired perspective.  However, I find that a comment in the link 
you provided, by " Comment author: Eddieosh " about TRIZ resonates with 
me.  I believe it would be productive and useful to "write the solutions 
down (rather than be diverted by them or try to bat them away), use them 
to help examine the problem a bit more and then carry on until you have 
enough information to make useful judgments about all the solutions 
you've generated".

I also want to suggest that more than one iteration of "use cases, 
problems, solutions" may be necessary.  The CVE seems like it is needed 
for many different processes that different people are trying to get 
done, however in somewhat different ways and with different 
requirements.  Those are your use cases.  How can we know if all use 
cases have been captured, and captured correctly?  In effect we're 
trying to build a conceptual model of systems of processes.  Comparing 
that model to reality is a crucial step.  I submit that the activity of 
discussing and criticizing potential solutions contributes to building 
conceptual models and validating them. 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/
>
> Having given it some more thought, and with some hope that we'll convene
> an in-person meeting, I'd like to step back even further to what I'll
> call use cases.
>
> What is CVE used for, by whom, and how?
>
> There is more than one answer, there is probably a "when" aspect too
> (use cases change over time), and we may not know all the use cases or
> be able to predict future ones.  Nonetheless, having some idea (and
> agreement) on what CVE is for makes the discussion about problems
> actually meaningful.  To have a problem, there is a (possibly assumed)
> use that isn't being met.
>
> So use cases, problems, solutions is the order I'm proposing, and this
> should frame our in-person meeting, and even work leading up to the meeting.
>
> Regards,
>
>   - Art
>
> PS, if you think I'm a process nut, I'm really not.  But I've seen
> enough complicated, multi-party discussions to know that without some
> process/framing, we're all spinning our wheels.
>