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

I agree with the proposal here and suggest we ought to try to extend for
6 months.

Dave 


Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange
Boeing Commercial Airplane
206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734
david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 11:23 AM
To: Thierry Michel
Cc: Chris Lilley; WebCGM WG
Subject: Re: WG future [was Re: AW: about scheduled Thursday telecon...]


Thierry,

Thanks again for the good suggestions and guidance...

At 06:38 PM 5/4/2007 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:

>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.

I like this list.

Per my previous message, I'd like to get feedback from *all* about it,
as the basis of a 6-month extension request.

All?  Feel free to make specific comments for additions, deletions,
changes to the list.

With an agreed list in hand, we can use it as the basis of an extension
request, which we would formally endorse at a future telecon.  May 24th
looks like a good candidate (pending answers from Thierry about whether
that timing works, and pending the WG consensus that we indeed do want
to make an extension request).

Regards,
-Lofton.



>  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 
>>>LH> be finished off and how long it will take."  The key is to be 
>>>LH> able to
>>>say what
>>>LH> we want to do and why we don't want to shut down on 5/31.  It 
>>>LH> would probably not work to say, "...extension to wait 3-4 months 
>>>LH> and see if a 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 Saturday, 5 May 2007 22:22:07 UTC