Hi everyone.

In trying to rewrite the architecture section after last night's meeting, I have come across a problem. The idea that you guys agreed on last week (technical, then legal, then incorporation of the two) doesn't seem to make sense with regard to how people actually think about these things.

Indeed, last night, we didn't think about it this way. We said: here's a generic problem (which is neither entirely technical nor entirely legal), how do we solve it in the abstract sense, and then how do we implement that in code and in law? I think this is the better solution. What do you think?

I think this will also allow me to write a detailed but generic statement in the beginning of the architecture section; this will better help inform Kristina about the decisions we made. Please comment.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 1998

Answers

I like the approach of first, stating the general problem; second, summarizing the solution for it; and third, explaining the specific legal and technical architectures which address the problem. This is the way I think about the issues raised by our topic and I think this order will make sense to both techie and non-techie readers.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 1998