[SM3] Next Steps

[SM3] Next Steps

[SM3] Next Steps

Michael Sweet msweet at apple.com
Wed Jul 15 19:48:59 UTC 2015


Bill,

Thanks for bringing this up, and after thinking about it I agree 100%.


> On Jul 15, 2015, at 1:35 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> There have been no SM3 or IPP mail list responses to my message on the "Need
> for consensus on the Value of the Semantic Model Activity". SM3 conference
> calls have continued to consider this question as well as availability of
> volunteers to work on the projects listed in the current Semantic Model
> charter. It seems that those with nominal interest do not have the time and
> those which may have the time are not convinced of the need. We do not seem
> to have a good handle on where to start.
> 
> 
> 
> My concern and my question is not new, not unique to this workgroup, nor
> just mine. Michael Sweet created a series of "policy" documents  over the
> past year (see ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/) including
> pwg-charter-policy. The charter policy document reflects a reaffirmation of
> the process by which new standards projects are started as defined in the
> PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process, with some added
> specifics.  We have tended to short-circuit this process in the past few
> years  by regarding new projects as just extensions of existing projects.
> The pwg-charter-policy document makes clear that new standards efforts must
> be properly defined and approved before they are added to a workgroup
> charter.
> 
> In order to promote the successful development of new PWG standards, all new
> 
> standards development MUST begin with one or more editors producing a White
> 
> Paper using the PWG Working Draft template that outlines the requirements
> and
> 
> possible technical solutions for the proposed standard(s) prior to adoption
> by
> 
> a PWG Workgroup or modification of any PWG Workgroup Charter.  The White
> Paper
> 
> MUST NOT assign, reserve, or register new standards-track names or values.
> 
> Multiple drafts of the White Paper MAY be produced and reviewed as needed.
> 
> 
> 
> Once the White Paper is stable, a PWG Workgroup can adopt the White Paper
> after
> 
> a modification to its charter, a new PWG Workgroup can be chartered to
> advance
> 
> the White Paper, or the White Paper can be abandoned due to lack of
> 
> participation.
> 
> 
> 
> Addition of new work, whether to an existing PWG Workgroup or through the
> 
> creation of a new PWG Workgroup, requires Formal Approval.
> 
> 
> 
> Because several projects had been identified in the SM3 charter prior to
> adoption of this policy document, we disregarded this process. I think that
> was an error and suggest that, if there is anyone with an interest in the
> projects identified in the current charter (or any other projects), they
> initiate the process by creating a white paper that "that outlines the
> requirements and possible technical solutions for the proposed standard".
> Once this is refined by the SM3 workgroup, it can be put up for formal vote.
> 
> 
> 
> This process may be  time-consuming and tedious, but certainly no more so
> than the wheel-spinning we have done so far. The process may show that there
> is insufficient support for a given project, in which case it should not be
> started.  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill Wagner
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sm3 mailing list
> sm3 at pwg.org
> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/sm3

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair



More information about the sm3 mailing list