re: [POLL] WebCGM Charter Extension Request

I vote YES.

Don Larson.

 >  WebCGM WG,

 >  Please respond TO LIST -- archived answer is essential.

 >  Please respond as soon as possible, but no later than Tuesday, 5/29.

 >  QUESTION:  Do you agree that the WebCGM WG should submit the following 
 >  Charter extension request?  Yes or no?  (If "no", then provide the reasons 
 >  for your negative vote).

 >  If this poll repeats our informal unanimous "yes" position from earlier 
 >  telecons and email, then I will circulate a results summary, edit the 
 >  paragraph starting "A resolution to request a charter extension..." and the
 >   
 >  reference [8], and send the request to Chris and Steve.

 >  Thanks,
 >  -Lofton.

 >  ==== proposed extension request follows =====

 >  Dear Steve and Chris,

 >  The WebCGM Working Group requests a 6 month extension to its
 >  charter in order to finalize uncompleted tasks from its current charter.
 >  The WebCGM WG Charter is currently terminating on 31 May 2007 [1].

 >  The WebCGM Working Group has fulfilled most of its Mission and Scope [2] 
 >  successfully, providing chartered deliverables [2b] with publication of a 
 >  WebCGM 2.0 Recommendation [3] and an OASIS Standard [4],  an 
 >  Interoperability Implementation Report [5], a Test Suite [6] and addressing
 >   
 >  a few WebCGM 2.0 Recommendation Errata [7].

 >  The WebCGM Working has not had time yet to finalize the following 
 >  deliverables as mentioned in its charter[2b]:

 >  1- collecting and publishing pending WebCGM 1.0 errata
 >  2- publication of a WebCGM 1.0 third release
 >  3- collecting and publishing WebCGM 2.0 errata, if required
 >  4- Organize a F2F to finalize these items.

 >  Furthermore WebCGM experts have compiled a preliminary list of 
 >  functionalities which were arguably within the scope of the WebCGM 2.0 Rec,
 >   
 >  but were not addressed for timing reasons -- they arose too late in the 
 >  process. Some new features that might be potentially desirable for a future
 >   
 >  WebCGM 2.x version are also under discussion.

 >  During its extension period, the WG will monitor these external 
 >  developments, and will decide before the end of the extension period 
 >  whether there is justification and requirement to re-charter the WG with 
 >  appropriate scope, to encompass the new work.

 >  A resolution to request a charter extension was accepted by the WebCGM WG 
 >  at during its telecon [8]. All WG members in good standing have indicated 
 >  they support this charter extension  and will continue to support the work 
 >  of the WebCGM WG.

 >  If you should decide to approve this request, then, at your discretion,
 >  you may consider granting more than 6 months (e.g., up through end of
 >  this calendar year).


 >  On behalf of Lofton Henderson, Chair of the WebCGM WG,

 >  Regards,
 >  Thierry Michel.

 >  [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/webcgm-charter.html#duration
 >  [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/webcgm-charter.html#mission
 >  [2b] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/webcgm-charter.html#deliverables
 >  [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-webcgm20-20070130/
 >  [4] http://docs.oasis-open.org/webcgm/v2.0/OS/webcgm-v2.0-index.html
 >  [5]http://www.w3.org/2006/Graphics/WebCGM/implementation-report.html
 >  [6]http://www.w3.org/2006/Graphics/WebCGM/testsuite.html
 >  [7]http://www.w3.org/2006/WebCGM20-errata.html

 >  [8]  to paste URI


 >  --------------------------
















Regards,
Don
Sales Manager
Larson CGM Software
(713)977-4177 x102
www.cgmlarson.com

Received on Monday, 28 May 2007 19:43:45 UTC