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

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.

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 13:56:50 UTC