FW: PWG> PWG Process

FW: PWG> PWG Process

FW: PWG> PWG Process

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Fri Jan 31 14:45:05 EST 2003


Since we have an urgent need for PSI to know what versioning scheme to use 
I've told Dave to go ahead with <major>.<minor>.<revision> as this had 
fair consensus on the call yesterday. If we transition to a different 
scheme Dave will need to know asap.
---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 
---------------------------------------------- 




"Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com>
Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org
01/31/2003 12:04 PM
 
        To:     "PWG (E-mail)" <pwg at pwg.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        FW: PWG> PWG Process


Excellent commentary, Bill.
 
Couldn't agree more.  I especially like the idea of the "date 
distinguishing scheme" for the working drafts.  That way, we're not trying 
to overload version numbers as a measure of how close we are to being a 
standard.  [This should help avoid the problem of Marketing groups 
deciding whether or not to wait until a version 1 stamp is established. 
All that is critical is whether the document has the title, "Proposed 
Standard," "Draft Standard," or "Standard."
 
Three stages of progression.  Three milestones for news releases.
 
lee
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Wagner,William [mailto:WWagner at NetSilicon.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:15 PM
To: Harry Lewis; pwg at pwg.org
Subject: RE: PWG> PWG Process

I agree with Harry that there was significant effort put into preparing 
the current process. The effort should first  be to understand and, if 
necessary clarify the presently defined process rather than to change it. 
Also, questions of document format, although important, must be separated 
from the standards development process discussion.
 
There were several points brought out in the plenary, and since I have not 
yet released the minutes, it may be germane to state them separately. They 
are not necessarily law, but they seem reasonable.
 
1. one must distinguish between versions of a standard and versions of a 
document. It is quite possible to have, for example two versions of a 
protocol, each fully documented and each implementable. However, for 
document versions  that deal with corrections, additional information, new 
insights, each version will obsolete the previous version. There have been 
some good suggestions on keeping track of document versions, particularly 
those that including the date in the title. I suggest that work on 
different versions of a standard  be treated as distinct activities. That 
is,  if we have Printing Protocol, that has advanced to Draft Standard, 
and we have a need for and have either created a new charter or revised 
charter for Printing Protocol 2, then Printing Protocol 2 becomes the 
title, it advances though the document stages as a separate project, and 
it is distinct from any version of Printing Protocol.
 
2. The levels of standards are defined. (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard 
and Standard). The steps to reach each stage are defined. There is an 
approval process for each stage. Once a document is reaches a certain 
stage, it cannot be revised or updated as a document at that stage; that 
would violate the sense of the approval process.  A new series of working 
drafts can be done for the next stage. Or the document can be invalidated 
in which case a new project may be started at the lowest level to address 
the fatal flaw.
 
3. The interim documents to reach a standard of a given level are working 
drafts of a document to eventually become a standard at that level. That 
is, an interim document of a  Printing Protocol Draft Standard should 
include in the title Working Draft - Printing Protocol Draft Standard. It 
can be assumed that there will be multiple working drafts  and therefore, 
conceptually, versions of the working draft. I suggest that the  date 
distinguishing scheme be used for these working drafts.
 
Bill Wagner
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:12 PM
To: pwg at pwg.org
Subject: PWG> PWG Process


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/20030131/af8b5f6e/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Pwg mailing list