Sorry that I discouraged you by suggesting a minimalist approach
to SM3 documents. I'm not sure why my comments on structure
and level of detail should have been so discouraging.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:26 PM, <wamwagner at comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>> I understand that Ira was being helpful, and I appreciate that fact that
> he is very busy and spent a hour of his time outlining the way he would do
> the Document and Jobs specification. However, this was after I had said I
> would take a crack at it and after I had made the point that whoever is
> writing it should have free reign to assembly a first draft, then taking
> comments to edit as necessary.
>> Ira comes with an intimate knowledge of IPP, and I suggest that his
> approach reflects this and assumes that the reader has a similar awareness.
> It is apparent to me that my approach would not be the same as his. I do
> not want to repeat the situation with my previous first cut at an SM3
> specification, which was summarily rejected (if it was even looked at).
> Therefore, I withdraw my offer to create any drafts as it would obviously
> be a waste of time for me and whoever would review them.
>>>>> As I have observed, we have had many suggestions on how to write these
> specifications, all made in good faith (although not all consistent.)
> Unfortunately, these suggestions come from IPP WG members who are already
> overcommitted and who will not be doing the writing…indeed it is unclear
> who will be. Ira repeatedly observes that IPP is the only binding for the
> model. It is unclear that there is any purpose to the general model,
> especially if that model is to be locked to IPP.
>> Ira also pointed out that 3D printing will be an IPP project since IPP
> really has the only really active workgroup. Indeed, he is right. Cloud
> (which struggled along) is now dead; IDS has done very little recently and
> with Joe leaving, is probably also catatonic. SM3 cannot seem to get
> started. I suggest that think we consider whether it is worth having an SM
> workgroup or whether it would be better that all PWG activity be centered
> with IPP.
>>> You might think about it. By the PWG process, workgroups can be
> “terminated by the Working Group Chair with the agreement of the Steering
>> Bill Wagner
>>>>>>> From: Daniel Manchala
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:34 PM
> To: sm3
>>>>>> Reminder: SM3 Meeting.
>> 11:00 AM - 12 PM PDT == 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM EDT.
> 18 May, 2015.
>>>>https://ieee-isto.webex.com/ieee-isto/j.php?MTID=md2409ecd0a1daf54e94167c6ad7ec42e>> Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239<tel:1-866-469-3239>
> Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300<tel:1-650-429-3300>
> Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570<tel:1-408-856-9570>
> Attendee Access Code: *******#
> Attendee ID Code: # (empty)
>> NOTE: DO NOT USE the audio bridge number shown by WebEx
> - instead use the regular PWG conference bridge listed above!
>> We will review the F2F meeting (held in Sunnyvale, CA) minutes posted at
> the following site:
> sm3 mailing list
>sm3 at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/sm3> _______________________________________________
> sm3 mailing list
>sm3 at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/sm3>