Re: [cgmo-webcgm] F2F

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

[...background for F2F discussions...]

It might help the decision and scheduling process to identify the options
for F2F goals.  

I see two goals that each might justify a F2F :

1.) Final preparation for CR transition.  This is what we did at
Cologne for 2.0, IIRC.  Implementations were mature and fairly
complete.  The test suite was complete.  And the spec was
mature and relatively stable, having gone to Last Call after application
of some 25 accumulated technical fixes.  There was only one Last
Call for 2.0.  For 2.1, we are seemingly some distance from this
state now.

2.) Identification and resolution of remaining technical defects in the
specification, to stabilize it for a 2nd LC before transition to
CR.  This was to be our goal for November, then for January. 
To flush out specification bugs, this requires:  a.) completion of
the test suite;  b.) at least one implementation *attempt* for each
feature in the spec;  and, c.) spec feedback from those
implementors, and from test-case writers.

Given the current status, level of activity, and declared commitments (or
lack thereof), goal #1 would seem "optimistic" in March time
frame.  Goal #2 would seem more attainable in the March time
frame.

Question to ask ourselves:  looking at the chartered schedule of the
WG [1], we see they planned CR transition in March.  That seems
unlikely.  Wild guess, I would say that will slip 2-3 months behind
[1].  

So the a choice we face is:  do we want our F2F to be sooner for #2
goal?   Or do we want to delay it for a couple months and aim
for #1 goal?

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/webcgm-charter.html#milestones

[Side opinion about #1-c above -- although 4 vendors claim to be
implementing, ALL spec-issue comments so far have come from one
implementor.  What is going on?  Some errors are subtle, but
some should be obvious.  E.g., "1-6" for stroke-type
instead of "1-5"?   If there is more than one
implementation in progress, then it would appear that we are not getting
the feedback we expect.]

-Lofton.

At 07:58 AM 1/20/2009 -0600, Forrest Carpenter wrote:

> All,
>
>  
>
> I would like to see a F2F the last week in
> March. I believe a scheduled F2F will help move the implementation of
> WebCGM2.1 forward. We would be willing to commit to having an 80-90%
> complete implementation by then if we have a F2F near the end of March.
> Would any other vendors be willing to make any commitment?
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
> Forrest