Re: [cgmo-webcgm] W3C and WebCGM TC Submission

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your email, clarifying the distinction between two possible 
methods of "contributing errata" to the W3C WebCGM WG, and their associated 
OASIS-related process implications.  We have now sorted it out, after some 
initial confusion.

To summarize... The WebCGM TC has not and will not make any external 
proposals or contributions to anyone.  Nor will the OASIS rep to the W3C 
WebCGM WG.  Any proposals or contributions on the topic will come from some 
other WG member, per your second method (below).

Best regards,
-Lofton.


At 03:55 PM 5/26/2006 -0400, Mary McRae wrote:
>Hi Lofton,
>
>   You told us about a new unapproved list of errata on the WebCGM spec,
>developed after the approved Committee Specification, which you wish to
>introduce to W3C:
>
>....
>   Since publication of the CS, the TC itself has come upon 10 or so 
> "errata" in
>the specification, as the TC members have continued to work on 
>implementations.
>* * * It is proposed that the TC send to the WG a list of proposed 
>improvements
>to the spec, which it recommends that the WG apply before Last Call 
>review. This
>list is completed.
>....
>
>   There are two valid methods for making a contribution of the errata 
> into the
>W3C WG. One is for OASIS (the consortium) to contribute it. The other is 
>for any
>other member of the WG to do so.
>
>   So far, OASIS's official position has been to approve the submitted 
> Committee
>Specification. We could change that, but not by a unilateral act from you or
>even the TC. If you want us (OASIS) to change our official position to include
>the errata, and thus authorize you (our rep) to contribute it, Patrick as CEO
>can approve it -- but this requires process work. For him to change our
>position, our Liaison Policy requires that you provide a written 
>justification.
>
>   If you want to take that course, would you please inform Patrick (a) 
> whether
>the TC has acted to adopt these errata; and if not, please inform him (b) why
>not, (c) who has been consulted, and (d) from who we can get assurance 
>that the
>errata are nonsubstantive and would be satisfactory to the TC.
>
>   I'm sorry if you find that burdensome, but some degree of control and
>appropriate process is a requirement on anyone who acts as this consortium's
>official representative to any external body.
>
>   Alternatively, any other member of the WG (and TC) could propose errata 
> within
>the W3C WG, as a contribution there, and then it can be brought back to OASIS
>after the W3C Proposed Rec stage. That would not require any action by 
>OASIS at
>this time.
>
>   The W3C WG is underway, and OASIS has long since sent in its 
> contribution. Any
>proposed changes at this point are occurring within the W3C process. We agreed
>in the MoU that the OASIS TC would remain dormant during that phase. Any 
>"delay"
>in that process is not caused by OASIS rules.
>
>   Please let us know which path you wish to take, and feel free to raise any
>questions you may have.
>
>   Regards.
>
>Mary
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>Mary P McRae
>OASIS
>Manager of TC Administration
>email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
>web: www.oasis-open.org
>phone: 603.232.9090