re: WG future [was Re: AW: about scheduled Thursday telecon...]

Lofton,

 >  Attached below is a snippet of dialog from earlier, where we were looking 
 >  at the various options for the WG's future.

 >  Questions for the WG members (please reply), and questions for Chris...

 >  At 08:54 PM 4/26/2007 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:

 >  >On Thursday, April 26, 2007, 8:26:57 PM, Lofton wrote:
 >  >
 >  >LH> At 04:59 AM 4/26/2007 -0400, Weidenbrueck, Dieter wrote:
 >  >
 >  > >> >      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.
 >  >
 >  >LH> Yes.  Chris said, "Thats easily possible, just say what needs to be
 >  >LH> finished off and how long it will take."  The key is to be able to say
 >   
 >  >what
 >  >LH> we want to do and why we don't want to shut down on 5/31.  It would
 >  >LH> probably not work to say, "...extension to wait 3-4 months and see if 
a
 >  >LH> future 2+ version is started."
 >  >
 >  >On the other hand, extension for 6 months to create errata for WebCGM 1.0 
 >  >and perhaps publish a new edition, is reasonable.

 >  WG:
 >  -----
 >  Is this the option that you support?

Yes, I support this option.

I like Thiery's list of items that he proposes for basis of extension.

Regards,
Don

 >  (The other reasonable option, from the original handful, would be to let 
 >  the WG expire and start it anew if 2+ work commences.)

 >  Chris:
 >  -----
 >  If the WG were to opt for this, a number of questions:
 >           a.) how and to whom do we request/propose it?
 >           b.) we know there are some 1.0 errata, but not how much till we 
 >  study, troll archives and minutes of 6+ years, etc.  Is that specific 
 >  enough for the extension request?
 >           c.) is 6 months a good number?  (IMO, it might be generous).
 >           d.) can the proposal be vague about "...perhaps publish a new 
 >  edition..."?  (The answer might depend on how much we find.)

 >  Regards,
 >  -Lofton.

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 18:07:43 UTC