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

Re: AW: about scheduled Thursday telecon...

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:26:57 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20070426121014.03a437b0@localhost>
To: "Weidenbrueck, Dieter" <dweidenbrueck@ptc.com>, "WebCGM WG" <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

At 04:59 AM 4/26/2007 -0400, Weidenbrueck, Dieter wrote:
>[...]
>I agree that the ball is on the OASIS TC side, and it is difficult
>to make decisions here before we know the outcome of those discussions.

And unfortunately, as we are seeing, those discussions might lag a bit.  It 
may be late summer before the TC has a f2f.  Typically, the TC can advance 
work without a f2f, but initiating work and getting consensus on scope, 
goals, requirements typically needs a f2f.


> > I see the following options for the WG future (please suggest
> > any others that you might think of):
> >
> >      a.) shut it down on or soon after 31st May;
> >      [a'.)  ...and set up new WG later if needed.]
>Last resort, it should be easier to keep it alive rather than
>having to start it all over again given the small number of
>interested members.

Right, but we need something to point to, as the reason that we don't want 
to shut it down.  See more, below...


> >      b.) unofficial short extension to finish any loose ends
> > (e.g., 1.0 errata?);
>not a long term solution
>
> >      c.) ask for official extension for some period till
> > future work becomes clear;
> >      [c') ...and possibly re-charter later with new scope if
> > 2+ work starts]
>This seems to be the most attractive way right now for me.

Yes.  Chris said, "Thats easily possible, just say what needs to be 
finished off and how long it will take."  The key is to be able to say what 
we want to do and why we don't want to shut down on 5/31.  It would 
probably not work to say, "...extension to wait 3-4 months and see if a 
future 2+ version is started."



> >      d.) re-charter immediately (with ??? scope?)
>which scope? Unless we agree to do the actual work in the WG
>rather than the TC, this will be difficult.
>
> >      e.) other?
>
>One more comment:
>I see a challenge in the fact that the actual work is done in the TC.
>So even with some kind of extension there won't be any work or topics
>for dicussion for the WG until we will be far down the road with
>future work.

That is looking accurate now.  The original thinking was something like 
this... if we were to agree in May for a fast 2.1 -- a small addition of 
5-6 items that were too late to add to 2.0, but were arguably in 2.0's 
scope -- then that could easily be almost to Last Call maturity in very few 
months, and that is the stage at which the WG's role begins.

-Lofton.


>Regards,
>Dieter
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-webcgm-wg-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von
> > Lofton Henderson
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. April 2007 17:13
> > An: WebCGM WG
> > Betreff: about scheduled Thursday telecon...
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Your feedback is requested, especially about telecon options.
> >  But also ...
> > let's start to hear some opinions about the WG's future.
> >
> > According to the teleconference calendar, Thursday 11am EDT
> > is our day/time.  Because of a conflicting doctor
> > appointment, I cannot make our normal 11am EDT slot.
> >
> > Because of bad coincidence on timing of planned travel, I
> > might only be able to make our Thursday slot next week by
> > calling from a pay phone on the road, and Thursday 11am EDT
> > the following two weeks will be problematic as well.
> >
> > Telecon options:
> >      - try to get slot moved one hour earlier Thursday (10am EDT)
> >      - try to get Friday AM slot (11am EDT) instead
> >      - cancel / postpone (possibly till mid-late May)
> >
> > Agenda items:  the WG has been totally quiescent lately.
> > Part of that is because we're in "wait mode", for the OASIS
> > TC:  they are leading in the errata process, and they are the
> > venue that is first looking at "futures"
> > -- WebCGM 2+, etc. -- and determining if there is the will
> > and resources to proceed.
> >
> > Errata:
> > -----
> > The OASIS 15 day public review on the WebCGM 2.0 errata
> > finished with zero comments.  On 9th May, the TC will have a
> > final vote and will post the finished errata files in their
> > final location.  At that point, we need to edit one file
> > pointer in the W3C errata file.  (This doesn't need any telecon time.)
> >
> > Future:
> > -----
> > The ball is in CGMO-OASIS WebCGM TC court still.  The TC will
> > not likely meet until summer.  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 all of the funding
> > resides and most of the initiative originated) 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.
> >
> > I see the following options for the WG future (please suggest
> > any others that you might think of):
> >
> >      a.) shut it down on or soon after 31st May;
> >      [a'.)  ...and set up new WG later if needed.]
> >      b.) unofficial short extension to finish any loose ends
> > (e.g., 1.0 errata?);
> >      c.) ask for official extension for some period till
> > future work becomes clear;
> >      [c') ...and possibly re-charter later with new scope if
> > 2+ work starts]
> >      d.) re-charter immediately (with ??? scope?)
> >      e.) other?
> >
> > For your information, if the WG re-charters, all members must
> > rejoin the re-chartered group.  Given that we have lost Chris
> > and might have another loss due to corporate mergers, we
> > might need some new energy/members to meet a reasonable threshold.
> >
> > What do you think?  This is probably the only meaty topic for
> > telecon discussion.  When and how should we discuss it?
> > (Email opinions are always
> > welcome.)
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Lofton.
> >
> >
> >
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 18:27:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:10 GMT