Bill has articulated much clearer than I... the notion that the PWG
process was only supposed to be undergoing some (obvious) corrections and
clarifications... not completely spilling its turnips!
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Wagner,William" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com>
01/30/2003 03:51 PM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <pwg@pwg.org>
cc:
Subject: RE: PWG> Process Changes from SM f2f
Although there are some interesting ideas here, I think several of the
proposed items are highly undesirable. The existing process is clear that
working drafts are informal documents. One uses a working draft to develop
a Charter. One uses a Working Draft to develop each stage of a standard.
I suggest that the process document is, in effect a PWG standard. If there
is a perceived need to change that process, and to develop (as it appears)
an distinctly different process, it should be done in an orderly way
according to the defined process. This includes first establishing need
and developing the requirements.
I think the need for a new process and the requirements for the new
process should first be made clear and agreed upon.
William A. Wagner (Bill Wagner)
Director of Technology
Imaging Division
NETsilicon, Inc.
781-398-4588
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:44 PM
To: pwg@pwg.org
Subject: 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 - 17:55:46 EST