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

Re: [Agenda] WebCGM telecon: Thursday, 29 November 2007

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:50:45 +0100
Message-ID: <474EFBF5.1010808@w3.org>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>


  responses in line

  Henderson wrote:
> Hi Thierry, Chris --
> At 08:59 AM 11/29/2007 +0100, Thierry Michel wrote:
>> See responses in line.
> I have some further questions in line, for both of you...
>>  Henderson wrote:
>>> Hello WebCGM WG,
>>> If you can't attend this week's WG teleconference, please reply (to 
>>> list) with "regrets".
>> I will be out of the office this afternoon, and will not be able to join.
>> Btw, I will likely be unable to teleconference
>>> next Thursday (6-dec), so we ought to have at least a brief one 
>>> tomorrow.
>>> Main topic: WG Re-charter.  We should get a status report about where 
>>> rechartering stands (Thierry), and some input from Chris on loose 
>>> ends in the draft charter.
>>> WebCGM, Thursday, 29 November 2007, 11:00am-12:30pm ET
>>> (logistics below, following agenda)
>>> Agenda
>>> =====
>>> Chair:  Lofton
>>> Scribe:  tbd
>>> (See:
>>> [0]  
>>> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/Group/scribing-guidelines.html )
>>> Previous minutes:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Oct/0039. 
>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Oct/0039.html>html 
>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Oct/0039.html>1.) 
>>> roll call 11:00am ET, membership, agenda
>>> 2.) routine WG business
>>>         - any?
>>> 3.) Recharter:
>>>         - status report (Thierry)
>> Here is what I have to report:
>> - I have talked to Chris about WebCGM rechartering. He is supporting 
>> our request.
>> As the new WebCGM WG will still be hosted by the Graphics Activity, 
>> Chris has sent an Advance Notice of work in Progress on Graphics 
>> Activity charters: WebCGM and SVG
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2007OctDec/0041.html
>> Once our charter is finalized, we will submit it to W3M and then to 
>> ACs for review (Usual W3C process).
>> In parallel (if needed) we should work on this annex as mentioned in 
>> Section 5 of the Mou [1].
>> "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."
> Will that annex be anything more than one sentence, specifying the 
> project along with the reserved name and version?

I have no idea, I have never experience this process and I am not sure
anyone else has in W3C.
I guess Chris should give advise here.
Also I am not sure if we need to involve Rigo, I think he was involve in
the Mou.

> When do we anticipate that we should start this process step, to get the 
> signatures on such a simple annex?

I guess this can be done in parallel with the charter renewal review.
>> We will use the same process as for WebCGM 2.1 (a part that there will 
>> be no submission to W3C. The work will be done jointly with OASIS and 
>> there will a W3C first Working Draft by 15 April 2008, followed with a 
>> Last Call WD by 01 July 2008 from an initial OASIS Committee Draft.
> Here I have a substantive question/comment.
> At our last teleconference, we decided that the 15 April "heartbeat" 
> milestone should not be a W3C WD, but rather a "status report".  
> Reason:  as with 2.0, the OASIS TC is doing the initial work, and will 
> not likely be finished by then.

> So this raises the same question of coordination that Chris and I dealt 
> with for 2.0.  The TC and the WG should *NOT* try to do technical 
> development on the spec in parallel.  As with 2.0, it would be nearly 
> impossible for both groups to work at the same time and coordinate their 
> changes -- i.e., it would be chaotic to try to feed each group's 
> resolved changes over to the other group, while the other group is going 
> through its process trying to effect its own changes.

> Therefore for 2.0 we did this:  TC works for a while and brings the spec 
> to some level of maturity (like LC).  Then WG begins work, TC 
> "hibernates" and does not work on technical spec development (could work 
> on test suite, etc), and the WG brings the spec through CR to the stage 
> of PR.  Then both groups take the spec simultaneously through their last 
> respective process steps.
> This worked smoothly for 2.0.  This is what I anticipate for 2.1.  Is 
> this what you had in mind?

Yes it is. As I said in my previous email, we should adopt the same
process as we have done with 2.0. (apart from the Submission to W3C).

In april we will release a document, call it a first WD or requirement
document or status report (but this latter one does not really exist in

So yes I think we have the same process in mind.

>> Finally about the dependencies in the Charter:
>> we currently have:
>> - Hypertext Coordination Group
>> - Document Object Model (DOM) IG
>> - W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
>> - Internationalization Working Group
>> - Web API Working Group
>> - QA Interest Group
>> We should probably remove
>> - W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
>> - Internationalization Working Group
>> - Document Object Model (DOM) IG
> Okay.  I'd like Chris's opinion on this as well, in case we're 
> overlooking something -- some dependency or sensitivity.

>> and say that we will solicit feedback from the groups on the *new* 
>> functionalities introduced in WebCGM 2.1.
>> for declarative animation we should probably add WGs using animation 
>> technos:
>> - SVG WG
> That makes sense.
> Regards,
> -Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 17:51:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:40 UTC