Ideally, one would determine through PARTICIPATION that the specification
is stable enough for prototyping. We haven't really defined prototyping
but, the way the process is currently written, a prototype is not
necessarily the same as an early implementation (although it could be). I
believe prototypes are intended more for learning what happens when we try
to give real substance to our ideas. I understand no one wants to invest
time and money into "throwaway" code. But, usually SOMEONE has to start
somewhere and take those initial steps. People can get burned... look at
TIFF-FX. I don't know if more detail in the process could have prevented
that. bv
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Rick Seeler" <rseeler@adobe.com>
Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org
02/22/2003 11:28 AM
To: <pwg@pwg.org>
cc:
Subject: RE: PWG> PWG Process update
One question about the new process:
How does one know that the specification is at a stable enough state to
begin developing prototypes? I believe it may be hard to convince any
company to invest in prototype development when there's no guarantee (or
voting process) to keep the standard from changing wildly in the interim.
If that step is "Candidate Standard", then the prototyping should come
after voting to go to "Candidate Standard" and not before.
Maybe that was the intent and it's just not stated properly. If the
statement "A Candidate Standard should not be approved unless it is
supported by prototypes and thought to be ready for implementation." were
moved out of section 4.5 and into section 4.6 (and the word "Candidate"
were removed), I'd withdraw my objection.
I saw the process as this:
1) Write the Requirements.
2) Vote on the Charter.
3) Write/modify the Specification. Once it seems solid...
4) Vote on the spec.
5) If the vote fails, go back to step 3.
6) If the vote passes, it's now a "Candidate Standard".
7) Find companies willing to do prototype work.
8) Create/modify prototypes.
9) If problems with spec are found, go to step 3 or create/modify an
errata document and go to step 8.
10) Do interop testing. If it fails, go back to step 8.
11) if interop passes, vote.
12) if the vote fails, go back to step 3 or create/modify an errata
document and go to step 11.
13) If vote passes - it's now a "Standard".
14) Celebrate!
Does this not seem reasonable?
(I'm sure there will be no shortage or responses to this question. ;-)
-Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pwg@pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Harry
Lewis
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:42 PM
To: pwg@pwg.org
Subject: PWG> PWG Process update
An update has been posted. Thanks to Dennis for adding some corrections,
observations and pointing out some issues (yellow). We've also added a
diagram like we had in the old process. Hope it is helpful.
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030221.doc
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 00:34:07 EST