PWG> Process document updated

PWG> Process document updated

PWG> Process document updated

Dennis Carney dcarney at
Tue Mar 11 10:17:45 EST 2003

In regards to your question 1, it's a bit worse: chapter 4 uses 'xyz'.  I
guess it makes sense to use the same "generic working group abbreviation"
in all places.  My personal vote would have been 'xyz', since it is very
clear that it needs to be replaced with the actual working group
abbreviation.  But I don't feel strongly about it.  If we *did* use 'wg',
we could maybe put it in italics wherever it appears to make it clear it is
a variable that needs to be replaced?


                      don at                                                                                                              
                                               To:       Dennis Carney/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS                                                           
                      03/11/03 08:05 AM        cc:       pwg at                                                                               
                                               Subject:  Re: PWG> Process document updated                                                         

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