Re: WG future [answering questions]

Thierry (et al),

Answering Thierry's two messages in reverse order...

Thanks for this helpful input and process guidance.  It makes clear how we 
should proceed, if we all agree to ask for an extension.

At 06:50 PM 5/4/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
>[...]
>To answer the following questions:
>
>  c.) ask for official extension for some period till
>  future work becomes clear;
>
>I support this option

I have heard from Don, Thierry, and Dieter in support of this option.  I 
also support it.

I would like to hear from Dave and Stuart.  (Also, Chris is still listed as 
a participant in our membership database.  Chris?)

>[...]
>>WG:
>>-----
>>Is this the option that you support?
>
>This is indeed the question the WG needs to answer, before submitting an 
>extension request.

Thierry, how does the WG need to record its decision?  Should it be a vote 
of WG members at a telecon?  Or email straw poll?  Or...?

[...later...okay, I now see that TTWG did it by unanimous resolution in a 
telecon, in the example you provided below...]


>>(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).

Our next WG telecon opportunity, at least the next that I'm able to attend, 
would be 24th May.  Would that be acceptable timing, to affirm our desire 
for 6-month extension, affirm our planned to-do list for the 6 months, and 
initiate the request to Chris (and Steve)?


>>         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.

6 months would be end of November.  In my opinion, that should 
suffice.  (The (OASIS) WebCGM TC should be finished sorting out its 2+ 
desires by late summer.)

But I don't feel strongly.  If end-of-year is better than 6 months, I'm 
okay with that.  Advice?

>>         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

Ah, this is good.  I see, for example, that it is useful to have a formal 
polling of members-in-good-standing, at a telecon, to reference in the request.

Regards,
-Lofton.

Received on Saturday, 5 May 2007 18:13:36 UTC