attachment-0001
<br><font size=2 face="Courier">Here is what I think was (partially) agreed
to in this morning's call</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier">1. In the diagram at the end of the process
document:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> a. Change the name of the
Formal Document "PWG Proposed Standard" to "PWG Working
Draft"</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> 1. There was an alternate
proposal to change this to "PWG Proposal" given that the diagram
already asserts </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> that informal
"working drafts" support the entire process</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> b. Change the name of the
Formal Document "PWG Draft Standard" to "PWG Proposed Standard"</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> 1. Although this would
not be necessary with the alternate approach (a1)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> c. Indicate, diagrammatically,
that there is iteration within each process step, not just linear progression
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> and last call rejection.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> d. Move the Activity "Prototyping"
to the right so that it spans the last call. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier">2. Appropriately reflect these changes
and naming conventions in the prose of the process document</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier">3. A versioning scheme was proposed as
follows:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> v.01 to v.xx "PWG
Working Draft"</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> Last Call & Formal Approval</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> v1.0.0 "PWG Proposed
Standard"</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> If minor changes necessary</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> v1.0.0 Errata document</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> If significant changes are
necessary</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> v1.1.0 "PWG Working Draft
of a Proposed Standard"</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> v1.1.1 "PWG Working Draft
of a Proposed Standard"</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> ...</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> v1.1.x "PWG Working Draft
of a Proposed Standard"</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> Last Call & Formal Approval</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> v1.1.x "PWG Proposed
Standard"</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> If minor changes necessary</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> v1.1.x Errata document</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> Last Call & Formal Approval
& (Steering Committee?)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> v1.1.x "PWG Standard"</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> This is where a lot of debate
was left unresolved, with some thinking a failed last call Proposed Standard</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> should recycle completely
back to PWG Working Draft and others thinking there is no need to last
call</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> a Proposed Standard except
in attempt to elevate it to PWG Standard.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier">4. An observation was made that we need
to define how the above versioning (however it resolves) correlates</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier"> with the ISTO document numbering
on the PWG web site.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier">5. We need to understand the ISTO policy
w.r.t. publishing PWG standards on the ISTO web site and CD.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">----------------------------------------------
<br>
Harry Lewis <br>
IBM Printing Systems <br>
---------------------------------------------- </font>