PWG Mail Archive: PWG> Process Changes from SM f2f

PWG> Process Changes from SM f2f

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 16:43:51 EST

  • Next message: Wagner,William: "RE: PWG> Process Changes from SM f2f"

    Here is what I think was (partially) agreed to in this morning's call

    1. In the diagram at the end of the process document:
       a. Change the name of the Formal Document "PWG Proposed Standard" to
    "PWG Working Draft"
         1. There was an alternate proposal to change this to "PWG Proposal"
    given that the diagram already asserts
            that informal "working drafts" support the entire process
       b. Change the name of the Formal Document "PWG Draft Standard" to "PWG
    Proposed Standard"
         1. Although this would not be necessary with the alternate approach
    (a1)
       c. Indicate, diagrammatically, that there is iteration within each
    process step, not just linear progression
          and last call rejection.
       d. Move the Activity "Prototyping" to the right so that it spans the
    last call.

    2. Appropriately reflect these changes and naming conventions in the prose
    of the process document

    3. A versioning scheme was proposed as follows:
     
       v.01 to v.xx "PWG Working Draft"

       Last Call & Formal Approval
       v1.0.0 "PWG Proposed Standard"

       If minor changes necessary
       v1.0.0 Errata document

       If significant changes are necessary
       v1.1.0 "PWG Working Draft of a Proposed Standard"
       v1.1.1 "PWG Working Draft of a Proposed Standard"
       ...
       v1.1.x "PWG Working Draft of a Proposed Standard"

       Last Call & Formal Approval
       v1.1.x "PWG Proposed Standard"

       If minor changes necessary
       v1.1.x Errata document

       Last Call & Formal Approval & (Steering Committee?)
       v1.1.x "PWG Standard"

       This is where a lot of debate was left unresolved, with some thinking a
    failed last call Proposed Standard
       should recycle completely back to PWG Working Draft and others thinking
    there is no need to last call
       a Proposed Standard except in attempt to elevate it to PWG Standard.

    4. An observation was made that we need to define how the above versioning
    (however it resolves) correlates
       with the ISTO document numbering on the PWG web site.

    5. We need to understand the ISTO policy w.r.t. publishing PWG standards
    on the ISTO web site and CD.
     
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems
    ----------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 30 2003 - 17:21:00 EST