[acm-tf] suggestion

Peter,

On 03/05/2011 18:44, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 04:23:47PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>
>> I think this could well be a good idea, although I would, of course,
>> welcome more feedback on it, especially from Wilfried. If the TF is
>> happy with the principle of this idea, we can float it to the community
>
> i believe we said that we would look at the desired properties of
> an "abuse contact" and then examine whether the IRT object is a close
> enough approximation to start from there and make modifications
> where necessary.  I would agree that the/an abuse contact object would
> be closer to IRT than to person or role, but what exactly is missing
> or carrying less than desired semantics is still to be found out.
>
> Therefore I believe that a "simple rename" would be premature as would
> circulating this idea to the wider community.  Please let's do the
> requirements first to get a reality check on those rather than on
> a proposed solution that we'd need to re-engineer for the problem.
>
> We also need to address the alleged or real difference between incident
> response and abuse and whether that can or should be preserved once
> we're facing the public.

All very good points, thank you. We did agree that, so let's do what we 
said we would do.

Brian.