PWG> PWG Process update

PWG> PWG Process update

PWG> PWG Process update

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Sun Feb 23 00:33:09 EST 2003


Ideally, one would determine through PARTICIPATION that the specification 
is stable enough for prototyping. We haven't really defined prototyping 
but, the way the process is currently written, a prototype is not 
necessarily the same as an early implementation (although it could be). I 
believe prototypes are intended more for learning what happens when we try 
to give real substance to our ideas. I understand no one wants to invest 
time and money into "throwaway" code. But, usually SOMEONE has to start 
somewhere and take those initial steps. People can get burned... look at 
TIFF-FX. I don't know if more detail in the process could have prevented 
that. bv
---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 
---------------------------------------------- 




"Rick Seeler" <rseeler at adobe.com>
Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org
02/22/2003 11:28 AM
 
        To:     <pwg at pwg.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: PWG> PWG Process update


One question about the new process:
 
How does one know that the specification is at a stable enough state to 
begin developing prototypes?  I believe it may be hard to convince any 
company to invest in prototype development when there's no guarantee (or 
voting process) to keep the standard from changing wildly in the interim. 
If that step is "Candidate Standard", then the prototyping should come 
after voting to go to "Candidate Standard" and not before.
 
Maybe that was the intent and it's just not stated properly.  If the 
statement "A Candidate Standard should not be approved unless it is 
supported by prototypes and thought to be ready for implementation." were 
moved out of section 4.5 and into section 4.6 (and the word "Candidate" 
were removed), I'd withdraw my objection.
 
I saw the process as this:
 
1) Write the Requirements.
2) Vote on the Charter.
3) Write/modify the Specification.  Once it seems solid...
4) Vote on the spec.
5) If the vote fails, go back to step 3.
6) If the vote passes, it's now a "Candidate Standard".
7) Find companies willing to do prototype work.
8) Create/modify prototypes.
9) If problems with spec are found, go to step 3 or create/modify an 
errata document and go to step 8.
10) Do interop testing.  If it fails, go back to step 8.
11) if interop passes, vote.
12) if the vote fails, go back to step 3 or create/modify an errata 
document and go to step 11.
13) If vote passes - it's now a "Standard".
14) Celebrate!
 
Does this not seem reasonable?
 
(I'm sure there will be no shortage or responses to this question.  ;-)
 
-Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pwg at pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Harry 
Lewis
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:42 PM
To: pwg at pwg.org
Subject: PWG> PWG Process update


An update has been posted. Thanks to Dennis for adding some corrections, 
observations and pointing out some issues (yellow). We've also added a 
diagram like we had in the old process. Hope it is helpful. 
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030221.doc 
---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 
---------------------------------------------- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/pwg/attachments/20030222/85acbcd4/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Pwg mailing list