PWG> Process document updated

PWG> Process document updated

PWG> Process document updated

don at don at
Tue Mar 11 10:05:02 EST 2003

A question and a thought:

1) Why in Clause 6 do we use "wg" as a stand-in for the working group's
acronym and in Clause 8, we seem to use "xxx"??

2) In regards to issue 4, I think we should require LOAs to be in place
before a document progresses to "Candidate Standard."

 Don Wright                 don at

 Chair,  IEEE SA Standards Board
 Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
 f.wright at / f.wright at

 Director, Alliances & Standards
 Lexmark International
 740 New Circle Rd
 Lexington, Ky 40550
 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)

Dennis Carney <dcarney at> on 03/10/2003 07:21:59 PM

Sent by:    owner-pwg at

To:    pwg at
Subject:    PWG> Process document updated

I have updated the PWG Process document with the changes discussed at the
SM telecon last Thursday.  The changes resolved issues 1-6 in the prior
version.  Issues 7-8 had to do with the LOA in the Intellectual Property
chapter, and we didn't resolve those during the telecon, so I made no
changes for those in this version.

I added two new issues, having to do with the maturity version.

I believe that this document is going to be discussed at the SM telecon
this Thursday, March 13.

Dennis Carney
IBM Printing Systems

More information about the Pwg mailing list