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
>> 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
>> possible technical solutions for the proposed standard(s) prior to adoption
>> a PWG Workgroup or modification of any PWG Workgroup Charter. The White
>> 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
>> a modification to its charter, a new PWG Workgroup can be chartered to
>> the White Paper, or the White Paper can be abandoned due to lack of
>>>> 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
>> Bill Wagner
> sm3 mailing list
>sm3 at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/sm3
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair