Re: WG future [answering questions]

Lofton,


To answer the following questions:

  c.) ask for official extension for some period till
  future work becomes clear;

I support this option


c') ...and possibly re-charter later with new scope if
2+ work starts]

I support this option (we will need to recharter only if the 2+ work is 
not in the current charter scope).

>> >>This seems to be the most attractive way right now for me.

Yes me too.


> WG:
> -----
> Is this the option that you support?

This is indeed the question the WG needs to answer, before submitting an 
extension request.

> (The other reasonable option, from the original handful, would be to let 
> the WG expire and start it anew if 2+ work commences.)

This might not be the best option, as we will need to start the 
rechartering process if there is 2+ work to start.

> 
> Chris:
> -----
> If the WG were to opt for this, a number of questions:
>         a.) how and to whom do we request/propose it?

The WG should send a request to the Domain Leader (Chris), copying Steve 
and the WebCGM WG list (member).

>         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?

There are other candidate items (see my earlier mail)

>         c.) is 6 months a good number?  (IMO, it might be generous).

Yes I would say till end of the year.

>         d.) can the proposal be vague about "...perhaps publish a new 
> edition..."?  (The answer might depend on how much we find.)

Sure.


see for example the TTWG latest extension  request
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-tt/2007Apr/0029.html

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 16:50:17 UTC