PWG> PWG Process

PWG> PWG Process

PWG> PWG Process

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Thu Jan 30 16:11:59 EST 2003


The SM f2f discussion of PWG Process was quite painful. It is obvious 
there are a multitude of varying perspectives on how to conduct the 
progression of a standards specification. We opened the process topic 
because we realized some conflicting information and need for 
clarification in our document.  I don't have a problem citing other 
organizations in search of "best practice" but I would like us to consider 
applying newfound reason to clarify our process, not redefine it!

Our existing process distinguishes the key stages of Chartering, 
Proposing, Specifying, Implementing and Maintaining an industry standard. 
It recognizes supporting documents for this activity such as White Papers, 
Working Drafts and Standards. It also acknowledges activities such as 
Brainstorming, Requirements gathering, prototyping, implementing and 
testing. 

The process, as written, is an attempt to organize these activities and 
supporting documents in such a way that streamlines the progression from 
concept to final standard... something we hadn't seen in other venues. One 
of the key elements of the existing process is that there are ONLY 3 LAST 
CALLS. Each last call (if passed) makes a distinct transition to a more 
stable level of the standard. This is signified by the STATUS (reflected 
in the name) of the standard... not the version. Versioning was not 
discussed in the current PWG process (which is a flaw) but was assumed to 
be a linear progression on the working drafts that supported the standard 
progression. 

Several ideas for updating our process were floated in the phone 
conference today. I am not opposed to updating the process... if one thing 
was proven by today's call it is that there is very little agreement on 
how the standard should be interpreted. I do feel compelled to remind that 
a great deal of similar discussion went into creation of the current 
process. I do wonder how much effort we are likely to expend only to come 
up with a process with new naming and versioning that diagrams out to 
nearly what we have, today. 

I recommend anyone who has a proposal which they were trying to hash out 
in the call but who feels like, perhaps, their point did not get 
assimilated or would like to expose their concepts to a wider audience, go 
ahead and describe your idea here, for discussion on the PWG.org reflector 
 
---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 
---------------------------------------------- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/pwg/attachments/20030130/f587853e/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Pwg mailing list