A question and a thought:
1) Why in Clause 6 do we use "wg" as a stand-in for the working group's
acronym and in Clause 8, we seem to use "xxx"??
2) In regards to issue 4, I think we should require LOAs to be in place
before a document progresses to "Candidate Standard."
**********************************************
Don Wright don@lexmark.com
Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org
Director, Alliances & Standards
Lexmark International
740 New Circle Rd
Lexington, Ky 40550
859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
**********************************************
Dennis Carney <dcarney@us.ibm.com>@pwg.org on 03/10/2003 07:21:59 PM
Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org
To: pwg@pwg.org
cc:
Subject: PWG> Process document updated
I have updated the PWG Process document with the changes discussed at the
SM telecon last Thursday. The changes resolved issues 1-6 in the prior
version. Issues 7-8 had to do with the LOA in the Intellectual Property
chapter, and we didn't resolve those during the telecon, so I made no
changes for those in this version.
I added two new issues, having to do with the maturity version.
I believe that this document is going to be discussed at the SM telecon
this Thursday, March 13.
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030310.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030310.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030310-rev.doc
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030310-rev.pdf
Dennis Carney
IBM Printing Systems
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 11 2003 - 10:12:15 EST