Hi Bill,
The PWG SC *has* required a charter for every project or WG
in the last four years (including CIM) - that's what our Process
says - and the PWG SC has required a project charter for all
new projects of existing working groups because they CHANGE
the scope of the base WG charter.
An important advantage is to get solid Out-of-Scope statements.
An open-ended WIMS Power Management project is a sure
formula for failure.
There is no harm in following our existing process (charters)
and a good deal of possible harm to skipping our process.
Two specific comments:
(1) The abstract spec should be called Power Managerment Model
(not Elements spec or whatever) - we have a well-known name
for these specs - let's use it please.
(2) As early as possible, requirements gathered should be part
of Section 3 Requirements in a working draft of the PWG Power
Management Model spec, not just informal stuff in .../wims/power
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
winter:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
summer:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:15 PM, William Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>wrote:
> Ira et al,
>>>> Thank you for your suggestions. My thoughts on the subject:
>>>> 1. Although a project statement is necessary for with Power Management
> effort, I do not think that a charter is. My plan was to pass a project
> statement past the working group and the SC for comment, but not to go
> through a charter process.
>> 2. Similar to what was done for other projects, I will create a new
> subdirectory under WIMS, but no new mailing list. I intend to place the
> existing power management information and the project statement in this
> directory, as well as non-specification draft documents. Working Draft
> documents for this effort will go under the WIMS/WD directory. But quite
> frankly, I foresee most of the immediate term effort being in gathering and
> documenting information of requirements and constraints rather than coming
> out with spec drafts.
>> 3. Addressing Harry’s question, I will try to make the “out of scope”
> area clearer and less restrictive. At this point, I do not want to
> prejudge what we want to do without better understanding of both
> user/administrator and manufacturer viewpoints.
>> a. In general, adding power state definitions beyond what is in ACPI
> is out of scope, although I would not immediately preclude providing for
> manufacturer defined sub-states. That is, the state must be one of the
> standard ones; but we may want to allow for a manufacturer to provide more
> details so he could effectively identify more detailed sub states to an
> application which understands them.
>> b. Regardless, we certainly need to address how the standard states
> apply to imaging devices in such a way that an identified state has a
> consistent meaning across all products. Determining just what this meaning
> is will be a major task. It is not immediately clear to me that there is an
> absolute power-range level associate with each state rather than a relative
> level or other aspects such as the ACPI Global state definitions include;
> e.g., , the latency from external events to application response, reboot
> require, safe to disassemble etc.
>> c. We touched upon whether we will identify power states for just
> systems, or subunits or a services or some combination. Ira suggested that
> we start with systems (which I am included to agree with)) and absolutely
> avoid Services (which I am not so definite about). If at all possible, we
> need to get user/administrator input, and we may find that although users
> think in terms Devices (Fax, Scanner, Printer), when dealing with an MFD,
> they are really concerned with Services. At this point, I think we need to
> listen more than dictate.
>> d. Although it may be obvious, developing a protocol is out of scope
> and tying the elements to a specific protocol is to be avoided. We recognize
> that defining a working binding is necessary for prototype, and the obvious
> choice at this point is SNMP. Nor do I believe that just mapping to a
> binding is a valid prototype of the elements spec. But the Power Management
> Elements Spec should be protocol agnostic.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bill Wagner
>>>>>>>> *From:* Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 11, 2009 5:01 PM
> *To:* Harry Lewis; Ira McDonald
> *Cc:* William Wagner; wims at pwg.org> *Subject:* Re: [WIMS] Draft of Charter of WIMS Power Mgmt Project
>>>> Hi Harry,
>> Thanks for the comments - my replies are inline below.
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com> winter:
> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
> 734-944-0094
> summer:
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> 906-494-2434
>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Harry Lewis <harry.lewis at infoprint.com>
> wrote:
>>> Ira, great start! Couple observations.
>> 1. As written, adding or changing power state definitions is out of scope.
> Should the objectives include "interpretation" or mapping of defined power
> states as they relate to imaging devices?
> - For example - are we going to standardize which "power level" relates
> to fuser or scanner lamp readiness etc?
>>> <ira>
> My two cents.
>> There was strong concensus at the last two face-to-face BOFs
> NOT to allow any but standard (CIM/ACPI) or vendor-defined
> power states - no site-defined power states - however, each
> power state should have an attribute for power consumption
> (in watts) - ACPI and CIM do NOT manage the absolute
> power level - they manage a *small* set of standard power
> states.
>> Therefore, the power *state* that relates to fuser or scanner
> lamp readiness is in-scope for WIMS Power, but the exact
> power consumption should NOT be changeable by the site.
>> Site-defined Power Policy (when to go to sleep after idle
> or a time-of-day) that can be changed is in-scope.
> </ira>
>>>> 2. Should the subtask have its own reflector? (we can't pass up the
> opportunity for POW at PWG.ORG!)
>>> <ira>
> No - we should continue to use the single WIMS reflector
> (as we have done for 4 years for CIM without problems).
> </ira>
>>>> Regards,
> Harry
> *
> Harry Lewis*
> Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards
> Phone: 720-663-3456
> e-mail: harry.lewis at infoprint.com> infoprint.com <http://www.infoprint.com/>
>>> P Think before you print
>> *Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>*
> Sent by: wims-bounces at pwg.org>> 05/11/2009 12:54 PM
>> To
>>wims at pwg.org, William Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>, Ira McDonald <
>blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
>> cc
>> Subject
>> [WIMS] Draft of Charter of WIMS Power Mgmt Project
>>>>>>> Hi Bill,
>> Attempting to more constructively help out...
>> I just posted a draft of a charter for WIMS Power Mgmt Project:
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/wd/wd-wimspower-charter-20090511.htm>> I followed the format approved by the PWG in IPP PSX project
> and more recently the MFD WG (basically the same idea).
> Especially, it includes a specific Out-Of-Scope section.
>> Please add a brief Problem Statement (replace <tbd>).
>> The Milestones during Definition Phase (Initial draft, Prototype
> draft, and PWG Last Call for each of Model and Binding specs)
> are the ones the PWG Steering Committee agreed on for MFD
> - the SC specifically do not want a milestone such as 'PWG CS',
> because a WG can't project that.
>> Comments?
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com>>> winter:
> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
> 734-944-0094
> summer:
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> 906-494-2434
>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
> wims mailing list
>wims at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/wims>>>> _____________________________________________________________________________
> "This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and
> may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the
> intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the
> information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If
> you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply
> e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any
> attachments. Thank you."
> _____________________________________________________________________________
>>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>> _______________________________________________
> wims mailing list
>wims at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/wims>>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/wims/attachments/20090511/730803d6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 590 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/wims/attachments/20090511/730803d6/attachment-0001.gif>
