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

Re: WebCGM 2.1 Timeline

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:33:54 +0100
Message-ID: <474DD0B2.2010102@w3.org>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Lofton Henderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm back.

Welcome.
> 

> At 05:02 PM 10/31/2007 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>> The URL is:
>> _http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/Group/2007/draft-charter/webcgm-charter.html

OK.
Now published at
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/webcgm-charter.html


>>
>> _[...snip...]
>>
>> At 04:55 PM 10/31/2007 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have implemented some of the changes we talked about:
>>>
>>> [...wrong URL was here...]
>>>
>>> The main things it needs now are:
>>>
>>> 1.) someone in last telecon had some nice  wording that artfully 
>>> characterized the idea of 
>>> "limited-scope-quick-project-of-2.0-leftovers."  I haven't done as 
>>> good a job with the small addition after the bullet list of "Mission 
>>> and scope"  And I have left a placeholder after the first paragraph 
>>> of same.  Volunteer please ... suggested wording improvement?
>>>
>>> 2.) "Relationship to other forums" needs work.  (Hopefully I can get 
>>> Chris's suggestions, as he would know how it should be.)
>>>
>>> 3.) A key need, by end of November:  a reasonable looking WebCGM 2.1 
>>> Requirements document to which to link.  (This will first be an AI 
>>> for the TC, and I'll try to make a first cut before I leave, so that 
>>> it can be just updated as we make more decisions.)
>>>
>>> Note also that I changed the April deliverable to a "Status report" 
>>> -- anticipating that the TC might not be quite done yet with 
>>> LC-quality spec draft (that has reached CS stage in OASIS).
>>>
>>> -Lofton.
> 
> Amongst other things, my new draft changed the 15th April "heartbeat" 
> milestone (2nd bullet) from a first WD to a "progress report". 
> 
> I did this on the assumption that TC/WG should coordinate on 2.1 exactly 
> as we did on 2.0 (it worked!) -- the OASIS TC works on the document to a 
> certain point of maturity (CS), the TC passes it over to the WG to 
> progress to PR and suspends its own spec development, then both groups 
> resume processing (in parallel) to completion.
> 
> Thoughts?

We seem to adopt the same process as for WebCGM 2.0.
Do we need an annex as it it mentioned in the current  Mou ?

"OASIS and W3C reserve the right to employ the process and agreement 
established with this MoU for future versions of WebCGM, by providing an 
annex with the reserved name and version, signed by the President of 
OASIS and W3C's chairman or Chief Operating Officer".
> 
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 20:34:23 GMT

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