Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 08:10:25 +0100
Diana wrote:
>I've just sent out a response to Magnus regarding defining Dynamic
>Quality. Just because you can't define it doesn't mean you can't say
>anything about it. Please, please, please, please, don't let's get back
>onto the to define or not to define debate. I've lost count of the
>number of times I've been over this. You can't give precise definitions
>of many things in the MoQ because of the Language Problem but you still
>can explain them to a certain extent.
It was not the definition part I was really after, it was the evaluation
of dynamic versus static quality which Magnus questioned; I only wanted to
ask Doug whether his comments on defining quality was motivated by the same
concerns. I got a little closer to what I am after in my comment to
principle # 9, and I am glad that you can see my point there.
And now I see your point in # 5, and remember that you have previously
talked of this. I have no problem with the point, but perhaps it could be
elaborated a little more in the principles if others have problems in
understanding it as it stands.
Thanks for your detailed response, Diana
Hugo
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST