Re: Conformance Check: Revised Documents

J Lovejoy

I agree with Sami.  

Throwing out a quick idea - it seems like using the main numbers that do match to the goals is ok, but it’s the point numbers that make it confusing.  Could we simply use:

instead of 

Would that be clear enough that it doesn’t exactly line up but still tie the questions to the relevant part of the spec?


On Sep 28, 2016, at 2:30 AM, Sami Atabani <Sami.Atabani@...> wrote:

Hi Miriam,
I had a quick glance at the document and still think we should use a different numbering system for the questions to avoid mix up with the spec numbering.
I will provide more feedback once I have been through the document in more detail.
From: openchain-bounces@... [mailto:openchain-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Miriam Ballhausen
Sent: 27 September 2016 19:52
To: openchain@...
Subject: [OpenChain] Conformance Check: Revised Documents
Hi all,
following up on yesterday’s call, please find attached the revised conformance check documents. As discussed, I added the references to the specification and the other changes we agreed on (changes tracked). Please let me know, if I missed anything.
Thank you all for your contributions! I feel we took a great step forward yesterday.
Kind regards,
Dr. Miriam Ballhausen
Legal Counsel
Telefon: +49 30 200 566 205
Mobil: +49 173 38 567 56 
Alte Jakobstraße 85/86, 
10179 Berlin
Telefonzentrale +49 30 200 566 0 Fax +49 30 200 566 1 
Lumesse GmbH,
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamborner Straße 51, 40472 Düsseldorf
Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 40857
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Carsten Busch, Michael Hunt.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list

Join to automatically receive all group messages.