Subject: Re: W-19 - open item - can we defer it?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:58:07 -0400

Doug replied:
>> My previous question still stands:  could post the argument for why 
_not_ to
>> have groups in CAP?
>
>I think the word 'group' needs to be defined. And I am not sure
>which usage you mean (or the requirements doc means).

Fair enough.  Could be we really are all on the same page... But I think 
we are talking @ 2 different levels.

>I thought we all agreed that transaction locking was out.

100% agreement here!  Next...

My use of "groups" is talking about groups of CUs rather than calendars 
themselves.  When I say "Im in the group called Developers" I mean I am a 
member of a list of CUs that is labeled "Developers".  The text in the 
work item was (in part) "CAP Group definitions, dynamic and static and how 
groups are used in VCARs. ".  I never took this to mean "groups of 
calendars" but rather "groups of users" since VCARs are applied on 
calendars _against_ CUs to grant/deny access.

Richards posting indicates that he was also referring to groups of users 
so I dont feel toooo bad about being the instigator of this 
miscommunication.  Now that we are on the same page WRT terms, Id like to 
hear Dougs (and others) thoughts on the inclusion/exclusion of "groups of 
users" in access rights.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...