PWG> Process Changes from SM f2f

PWG> Process Changes from SM f2f

PWG> Process Changes from SM f2f

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Thu Jan 30 16:43:51 EST 2003


Here is what I think was (partially) agreed to in this morning's call

1. In the diagram at the end of the process document:
   a. Change the name of the Formal Document "PWG Proposed Standard" to 
"PWG Working Draft"
     1. There was an alternate proposal to change this to "PWG Proposal" 
given that the diagram already asserts 
        that informal "working drafts" support the entire process
   b. Change the name of the Formal Document "PWG Draft Standard" to "PWG 
Proposed Standard"
     1. Although this would not be necessary with the alternate approach 
(a1)
   c. Indicate, diagrammatically, that there is iteration within each 
process step, not just linear progression 
      and last call rejection.
   d. Move the Activity "Prototyping" to the right so that it spans the 
last call. 

2. Appropriately reflect these changes and naming conventions in the prose 
of the process document

3. A versioning scheme was proposed as follows:
 
   v.01 to v.xx  "PWG Working Draft"

   Last Call & Formal Approval
   v1.0.0 "PWG Proposed Standard"

   If minor changes necessary
   v1.0.0 Errata document

   If significant changes are necessary
   v1.1.0 "PWG Working Draft of a Proposed Standard"
   v1.1.1 "PWG Working Draft of a Proposed Standard"
   ...
   v1.1.x "PWG Working Draft of a Proposed Standard"

   Last Call & Formal Approval
   v1.1.x "PWG Proposed Standard"

   If minor changes necessary
   v1.1.x Errata document


   Last Call & Formal Approval & (Steering Committee?)
   v1.1.x "PWG Standard"

   This is where a lot of debate was left unresolved, with some thinking a 
failed last call Proposed Standard
   should recycle completely back to PWG Working Draft and others thinking 
there is no need to last call
   a Proposed Standard except in attempt to elevate it to PWG Standard.

4. An observation was made that we need to define how the above versioning 
(however it resolves) correlates
   with the ISTO document numbering on the PWG web site.

5. We need to understand the ISTO policy w.r.t. publishing PWG standards 
on the ISTO web site and CD.
 
---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 
---------------------------------------------- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/pwg/attachments/20030130/bd50be49/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Pwg mailing list