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

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>]

Thanks Lofton. All is clear. As you point out, if there are changes
from the review, they can be handled through the shorter '2d review'
process ... and even that shorter one is required only if they are
"Substantive Changes" as defined in the TC Process.

I expect Mary will get the TC's request to initiate public review
fairly soon, then. Again, congrats on the milestone. Regards Jamie

--------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:40:44 -0600
To: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Status of proposed joint approval process 
  WebCGM 2.1
Cc: 
cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org,cgmopen-sc@lists.oasis-open.org, 
Mary McRae
<mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>

Jamie, et al --

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.