>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Scott> OK, if we're going to get stuck on the example, we should
Scott> take it out. As Sam said, it's the least necessary part.
Scott> I still think the phrase in the first sentence "including
Scott> which existing technology is re-used" could be better.
Yeah, let's lose the example at this point.
I disagree with Eliot: I don't think the general statement is a truism
especially not in a BCP.
In particular we're:
* saying what point in the process you need to evaluate the
architectural implications on your ability to mittigate pervasive
monitoring
* Reminding people to get appropriate review
* Indicating that PM needs to be considered at the architectural
decision level, not just late in the process.
I believe all that is important in a BCP, and strongly support that sort
of statement being in a BCP now.
I definitely don't want to see the example used as an argument against
BCP so let's lose it.