RE: [cgmo-webcgm] We got cut off! - Fall meeting

["Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com>]

I'm proposing we adopt Lofton's proposal for a timeline on implementation.  If there are no comments to the contrary we will work to this schedule.  I'll put together something with milestones when I get back from vacation on the 23rd.

thx...Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:39 AM
To: Cruikshank, David W
Cc: CGM Open WebCGM TC
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] We got cut off! - Fall meeting


At 08:36 AM 7/14/2004 -0700, Cruikshank, David W wrote:
>[...]November might work best with shedule for vendor implementations 
>and  currently my November looks pretty empty.  [...]  Week of Nov 8 might 
>be good?

That week, in Houston, would be fine with me.

About coordination with WebCGM 2.0 schedule, here are my thoughts.  A 
proposal, for your consideration and feedback...

11 August (telecon):  WebCGM 2.0 feature freeze:
==========
At the end of that telecon, all major issues should be closed, and WebCGM 
2.0, DOM, Events, XML Companion, etc should be functionally complete.

Between now and August 11, everyone should look closely at the 
functionality.  Especially, implementors, have your implementation teams 
looking at it and giving feedback.  (e.g., feature too expensive, wrong 
details, missing critical feature, feature not worth the effort, etc)

mid-August thru mid-November:  write 2.0 spec
==========
Refine and draft the document through next two telecons and a F2F, resolve 
issues arising from implementation, etc.  At least three significantly 
complete drafts produced for review and discussion -- one per month.

mid-August thru mid-November:  vendor implementations
==========
Concurrently, the vendors should work on the implementations.  (Actually, I 
think we know enough about the final shape to start implementation projects 
*now* ... except we don't have a JavaScript binding yet!).  By mid- or 
late-October, all committed implementations should be fairly advanced -- 
major stuff done, maybe some details and minor stuff remaining.

The implementation phase is critical.  The spec won't progress and get 
needed refinement feedback without it.  It will essentially position us at 
the "CR" phase in the W3C REC track if we do this successfully.

early-November
==========
Next F2F.  Before "final" (third) 2.0 draft.  Before effective completion 
of implementations.

This is very coarse, but what do people think about it?  Is it 
realistically achievable?

(We can refine and get some intermediate milestones if the overall shape 
looks okay.)

Regards,
-Lofton.