W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > April 2007

RE: telecon Thursday?

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:22:36 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>, "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

At 02:53 PM 4/11/2007 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:

>Wouldn't hurt my feelings if there is not a telecon tomorrow,

Unless I hear a chorus of objections, I'm going to postpone, at least for 
two weeks.  I can use the time this week to work on the couple of pending 
WebCGM-related items.

>but we do
>need to make a decision about the WG in W3C, based on commitment from
>the OASIS TC.  I will be unavaiable from April 23rd through May 4th due
>to travel.

The decision seems simple to me:

** if the TC members demonstrate the need (requirements and use cases), and 
commit to new work, then the WG should continue -- the constituents will 
want it to be Rec as well as OS, and we already have the MOU in place, 
applicable for follow-on work after 2.0.

** otherwise, I don't see any point for the WG to continue.

Right now, I'm unaware of the timetable for the TC decision.  That should 
be estimable when you finish your TC survey, and we have dates for 
(earliest possible) TC f2f.  When is your survey done?  At the next TC 
telecon (9th May)?  Or before?


>Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
>Boeing Commercial Airplane
>206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:37 AM
>To: WebCGM WG
>Subject: telecon Thursday?
>How do people feel about a Thursday AM telecon?
>Continuing the recent trend, it has been quiet on email, and there isn't
>much active business.  Pending business includes...
>The OASIS 15 day ballot is in progress.  Chris has been asked to move
>the W3C errata file to replace the dummy that is currently referenced
>from the Rec WebCGM 2.0 Status section.
>The ball is in CGMO-OASIS WebCGM TC court still.  There will not likely
>be a late May meeting of the TC.  But it is searching for a summer
>meeting date.  There is interest in further work, but requirements need
>to be firmed, scope decided, and technical work launched.
>Long story short ... if the TC (where most of the energy and all of the
>funding resides) decide NOT to proceed, then the WG likely won't have a
>future beyond finishing any errata work.  If the TC proceeds, then the
>WG might have a useful future, along the lines of the 2.0 collaboration.
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 22:22:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:39 UTC