Re: [POLL] WebCGM Charter Extension Request

Lofton,

Yes we should submit the Charter extension request.


  Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 28 May 2007 22:00:03 UTC