I would like to have a process check regarding the issuing of draft
standards in the PWG. The good news is that we've had quite a lot of
draft activity recently. This demonstrates vibrant interest in our
standards within the industry. We've also been fairly diligent in
following the use of a standard template (the ISTO tells me there will be
come template updates forthcoming). In our enthusiasm, however, we've
begun to overlook the need for a formal process of introducing,
chartering, developing, reviewing and accepting the draft as a standard.
The most outward evidence of this is that new drafts are being issues with
ISTO PWG standard document numbers already assigned.
I would like to amend our process to clarify that new draft proposals
should be named following a convention "pwg-working group-proposal name"
(ex. "pwg-ipp-actual-attributes-v1-01" or "pwg-ps-spec-v0-91").
I will allow discussion on this in case we need to hone the format. Once
decided, we will migrate to using the new naming convention.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - ISTO Printer Working Group
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 24 2002 - 19:12:09 EDT