- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 11:24:27 -0600
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for the good feedback, Chris. Especially, the sanity check of extension work items against our current Charter, http://www.w3.org/2006/03/webcgm-charter.html Let me summarize, to see if I understand correctly what you have detailed (below). Of Thierry's list items, these are clearly in-scope for the current Charter: -- WebCGM 1.0 erratas (we know there are some) -- WebCGM 2.0 erratas, if some come in -- Publish a new edition -- Organize a F2F to finalize these items if needed And these are out of scope as they are written: -- determine the exact WebCGM 2+ work -- Work on a new charter if necessary (depending on the work of WebCGM 2+). And I'm unsure that I understand your below assessment (see more below): -- Work on a requirement document if needed. I understand that we *could work* on a new WG Charter now. But my preference would be to see what happens externally (in the TC, which is leading), and then decide whether there is new work for which the WG should re-charter. This approach seems like less work, and more easily explained. If we were to request the extension with the definitely in-scope items, then that request would have good prospect of approval? And ... would there be anything to prevent the WG from informally monitoring and discussing the external (TC) scoping for 2+ work, right? And nothing to prevent the WG from deciding, sometime in the Fall, "okay ... we ought to re-charter and embrace this new 2+ stuff"? A couple more comments are embedded... At 04:20 PM 5/6/2007 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote: >On Saturday, May 5, 2007, 8:23:10 PM, Lofton wrote: > >LH> Thierry, > >LH> Thanks again for the good suggestions and guidance... > >LH> 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. > >LH> I like this list. > >LH> Per my previous message, I'd like to get feedback from *all* about it, as >LH> the basis of a 6-month extension request. > >The first three (and the f2f) are in scope for the current charter. > >My understanding is that the fourth one, scope of 2+, is being done by the >TC in practice. Is that expected to complete in the next 6 months? Yes. Hopefully, it will be substantially done in half that time. >I agree with Thierry that if the scope is limited to items in the current >charter then a new charter may not be needed (although it doesn't hurt; >and it may be an idea to explain to the AC why the new work is needed, and >why its needed now.) Given that we are still a bit unsure of the scope of any 2+ work (altho' we generally believe that some such will progress), it would seem easier to explain (and less work) to monitor it informally until something gels externally. Does that make sense? And should that happen (something gels), then at that point decide that the WG should put it before the AC and re-charter. >In other words, asking for a 6 month extension to do errata and WebCGM 1.0 >3rd release is likely to be granted. Asking after that for another year or >two to work on a 2.1 is likely to need some more explanation; a charter >and briefing package is the usual way to provide such supporting documentation. Which I feel is slightly premature now, hence probably best postponed. >A requirements doc can be done, if the scope is clear, or it could be >listed as a deliverable in the new charter. As I read this, you're saying that we could, under the current Charter, do some requirements collection (especially intra-W3C) and documentation during an extensions period? Or we could do it under a new Charter? Would the former approach in any way possibly endanger approval of an extension request (we would presumably mention it in the request)? Regards, -Lofton.
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 17:24:37 UTC