Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Status of proposed joint approval process WebCGM 2.1

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Jamie, et al --

At 11:29 AM 3/27/2008 -0700, James Bryce Clark wrote:
>   Congratulations on your approval of the first Committee Draft of WebCGM 
> v2.1 at today's meeting.

Thanks.  We have managed to stay approximately on schedule for the 
document, and are optimistic that we can maintain our time line.

Thanks also for the status update and confirmation queries (my comments and 
answers are embedded)...

>We would like to confirm some matters regarding the transmission of the 
>work for joint processing by W3C.
>   As you know, your team recommended to us that we simply extend the 
> original W3C-OASIS MoU (which set out the joint development track for 
> WebCGM v2.0) to apply the same arrangements to WebCGM v2.1.  I have 
> recommended this to our interim President, and do not anticipate a 
> problem or long delay.  Informally we also have some indications that W3C 
> is fine with this approach.

That's good to hear.  It makes sense and really reduces the amount of 
administrative handling and delay.

>   Still, there is one timing matter I'd like to confirm.  If I understand 
> correctly, Lofton and my colleague Mary McRae, the TC's staff contact, 
> both advised that the path used for last round's submission can work 
> again, in the same way.  (Thus, as Lofton'd suggested, we can use a very 
> short "just do the same thing again" MoU amendment, instead of a 
> substantial alteration of the agreed sequence.)

Yes, that is our recommendation.  In fact, if we stay on the time line, we 
will even achieve roughly the same calendar dates (plus two years) for the 
processing milestones in both organizations!  (That is a nice touch, but 
not an essential aspect of using the same sequence.)

>   But that assumes that the same timing & sequence of approval levels as 
> for v2.0.  Among other things, the OASIS TC artifact would complete its 
> 'committee specification' approval, including the public review phase, 
> before being sent over to the W3C Graphics Activity.  Here's why I 
> mention it:  the first v2.1 Committee Draft was approved today.  If  it;s 
> the last CD, and sent for public review immediately, the public review 
> starting now would end no sooner that late May and, assuming no 
> substantive changes, a CS approved no sooner than early June .. which is 
> when it would be officially transmitted to W3C for its work to commence.

That is indeed correct.  But one small correction on our early-June 
anticipations...

We *do* anticipate substantive issues in the next 60 days.  We will look at 
them as they arise, and anticipate outstanding issues resolved (and 
hopefully revised document) by end of the TC's 28-30 May face-to-face 
meeting.  This, btw, is why we are so keen to start the CD review 
immediately.  Then will be a 2nd (15-day) CD review and CS vote.  So 
mid-late June might be more accurate than early June for the CS hand-off to 
W3C.

[Still, the dates of the milestones will likely fall close to the 2006 
calendar plus two years (although again -- it is the sequence of milestones 
and not the actual calendar dates that are critical).  Last time, for 2.0, 
FPWD & LC review commenced in W3C around June 26, 2006.  We'll be slightly 
later in 2008, but that's of no concern.]

>   If that's NOT correct, we'd need to hear from you, and (now, up front) 
> we would need to alter the MoU before signing, after understanding it and 
> stating exactly at what phase(s) the doc is to be crosscontributed.

To reconfirm:  it IS correct.  That is the sequence of milestones that we 
anticipate, slightly modified for a 2nd (15-day) CD review in early June 
and then a CS vote.

Please let me know if I have been unclear, or if you (or anyone) would like 
more details.

Regards,
-Lofton.