attachment-0001

<html><body> <DIV>The next WIMS conference call is at 12 noon EDT on 15 June. Agenda will concentrate on Counter Spec:</DIV> <DIV><A href="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/wd/lcrc-wimscount10-20050603.pdf"><FONT face=sans-serif color=blue size=2>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/wd/lcrc-wimscount10-20050603.pdf</FONT></A> <BR><A href="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/wd/lcrc-wimscount10-20050603rev.doc"><FONT face=sans-serif color=blue size=2>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/wd/lcrc-wimscount10-20050603rev.doc</FONT></A> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>Dial In: 1-866-365-4406</FONT> <BR><TT><FONT size=2>Passcode: 2635888#</FONT></TT> <BR> </DIV> <DIV>This draft includes changes agreed to at last conference call although the "requirements" item still needs to be addressed. Ira's message of 7 June should be discussed as to need, required detail, and who will generate the new material. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I find the "requirements" requirement of the PWG process unclear with respect to whether these deal with requirements for the proposed items (Why have are counters needed ?) or Ira's interpretation that it is a detailed identification of the requirements of the proposed  items. It would be helpful if Jerry (as protagonist for inclusion) could clarify his interpretation of the process document. At any rate, it seems odd having the more general use models (which touch on requirements for) in section 3 , while the  design requirements are in section 1. It would seem that the "Why" should precede the  how.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With the resolution of the "requirements"  question, I believe that the WG group has gone well beyond addressing voiced last call issues, and although we would continue to strive toward perfection, I think we had better concentrate on wrapping this up and getting it ready for a vote. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bill Wagner, Chairman, WIMS WG</DIV></body></html>