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

Re: WebCGM 2.1 Timeline

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:14:55 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20071128141035.02df0d80@localhost>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>, WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

At 09:33 PM 11/28/2007 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:
>[...]
>>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

Thanks Thierry.

As I indicated in my most recent message,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Nov/0016.html ,
we ought to quickly resolve the incomplete bits, especially the editorial 
notations in the "Relationships to other forums" section.

Let's discuss it tomorrow.

Cheers,
-Lofton.




>>>_[...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 21:15:16 GMT

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