Mach 30 #EngineerSpeak Hangout Sept 26, 2013
Discussion Topic: Refining Shepard Initial Questions v2.0
Attending: J, Chris, Ethan, Jeremy, Juli
Start: 22:00
End: 23:05
Minutes:
- Note - Chris asked us to remember to do requirements for the software as well
- J - good catch, forgot to do that last time; will use same approach as updates to structure requirements - go through initial questions, then generate requirements
- Jeremy - do we want to experiment with Agile-style user stories for the software?
- J - good idea
- Chris - no comments
- Ethan - no comments
- Jeremy - like it, good merge of old and the new, keeps the essentials and adds the required focus with the “grandma test”
- Chris - no comments
- Ethan - might want to consider whether we need to address blast shielding; oh, there is already a safety requirement
- J - should add an item to this list that “the motor mount should survive motor failure”
- Ethan - add “cleanup and maintenance should be kept to a minimum between test firings” (addressing the need for the rail shield in v1.x)
- Jeremy - first bullet point, make it clear the tool requirement is not either/or, just a class of tools
- Jeremy - move third bullet up to second position
- Jeremy - update the list of things being measured (there are two bullet points about this)
- Jeremy - add item that there needs to be space to post warnings and branding, etc
- Chris - should consider moving some of the answers to Q6 up to Q4.
- J - agrees about the OS and connectivity requirements (move these two items to Q4)
- Jeremy - what about the opening sentence?
- J - would suggest we strike the entire first paragraph (assuming we move the requirements from this sentence to Q4)
- Chris - no comments
- Ethan - no comments
- Jeremy - strike first sentence; lower case “anyone”
- Chris - does this actually answer the question
- Jeremy - could we phrase it “as many as the market will demand”?
- Chris - no comments
- Ethan - no comments
- Jeremy - wants to rephrase the “reusable like Shepard” Don’t spend much time on it though (nobody else has a problem with the wording).
- Chris - no comments
- Ethan - no comments
- Jeremy - spell out CCSSC or link or something; would be more clear about how strongly required (or not) sellable kits by summer 2014 is