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

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.

Thierry



  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.
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 16:39:07 UTC