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

On Saturday, May 5, 2007, 8:23:10 PM, Lofton wrote:

LH> Thierry,

LH> Thanks again for the good suggestions and guidance...

LH> At 06:38 PM 5/4/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:

>>Lofton,

>>I believe we could request a 6 months extension to deal with following items:

>>- WebCGM 1.0 erratas (we know there are some)
>>- WebCGM 2.0 erratas, if some come in
>>- Publish a new edition
>>- determine the exact WebCGM 2+ work
>>- Work on a new charter if necessary (depending on the work of WebCGM 2+). 
>>If we only deal with the work items that we already mentioned in the 
>>current charter, we probably will not need to do so else if there are new 
>>work items we will need to recharter.
>>- Work on a requirement document if needed
>>- Organize a F2F to finalize these items if needed.

LH> I like this list.

LH> Per my previous message, I'd like to get feedback from *all* about it, as
LH> the basis of a 6-month extension request.

The first three (and the f2f) are in scope for the current charter.

My understanding is that the fourth one, scope of 2+, is being done by the TC in practice. Is that expected to complete in the next 6 months?

I agree with Thierry that if the scope is limited to items in the current charter then a new charter may not be needed (although it doesn't hurt; and it may be an idea to explain to the AC why the new work is needed, and why its needed now.) In other words, asking for a 6 month extension to do errata and WebCGM 1.0 3rd release is likely to be granted. Asking after that for another year or two to work on a 2.1 is likely to need some more explanation; a charter and briefing package is the usual way to provide such supporting documentation.

A requirements doc can be done, if the scope is clear, or it could be listed as a deliverable in the new charter.

LH> All?  Feel free to make specific comments for additions, deletions, changes
LH> to the list.

LH> With an agreed list in hand, we can use it as the basis of an extension
LH> request, which we would formally endorse at a future telecon.  May 24th
LH> looks like a good candidate (pending answers from Thierry about whether
LH> that timing works, and pending the WG consensus that we indeed do want to
LH> make an extension request).

LH> Regards,
LH> -Lofton.



>>  Henderson wrote:
>>>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?
>>>(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.











-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 14:20:20 UTC