Hi Paul,
A bare outline is not the required whitepaper per the current PWG policy
for new projects. The whitepaper in question would look more like the
intermediate drafts of (for instance) CWMP that Nancy and I wrote - that
is, it should have pretty complete use cases, design requirements, and
some main section content that clearly shows the "solution approach".
I don't think we should break that policy by voting on an outline. I think
Bill's point was that volunteer(s) to be editors should write fairly solid
whitepapers that include a good deal of the above content. I agree.
Cheers,
- Ira
PS - I don't volunteer to be an SM editor. Between IPP, IETF, TCG, and
now ETSI and ITU-T specs, I've got a full plate already.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: 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 Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Paul Tykodi <ptykodi at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Mike & Bill,
> Since we already have the outlines for the two documents the SM3 group
> could produce, to update the Semantic Model to support imaging systems
> implemented in either Cloud or mobile environments, my suggestion is that
> we accept the latest outline as effectively serving as the necessary white
> paper and move towards having a vote by the PWG membership on whether they
> want these two documents produced or not.
> Thanks.
> Best Regards,
> /Paul--Paul Tykodi
> Principal Consultant
> TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC
>> Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820
> Mobile: 603-866-0712
> E-mail: ptykodi at yahoo.com> WWW: http://www.tykodi.com>>> On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:49 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com>
> wrote:
>>>> Bill,
>> Thanks for bringing this up, and after thinking about it I agree 100%.
>>> > On Jul 15, 2015, at 1:35 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > There have been no SM3 or IPP mail list responses to my message on the
> "Need
> > for consensus on the Value of the Semantic Model Activity". SM3
> conference
> > calls have continued to consider this question as well as availability of
> > volunteers to work on the projects listed in the current Semantic Model
> > charter. It seems that those with nominal interest do not have the time
> and
> > those which may have the time are not convinced of the need. We do not
> seem
> > to have a good handle on where to start.
> >
> >
> >
> > My concern and my question is not new, not unique to this workgroup, nor
> > just mine. Michael Sweet created a series of "policy" documents over the
> > past year (see ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/) including
> > pwg-charter-policy. The charter policy document reflects a reaffirmation
> of
> > the process by which new standards projects are started as defined in the
> > PWG Definition of the Standards Development Process, with some added
> > specifics. We have tended to short-circuit this process in the past few
> > years by regarding new projects as just extensions of existing projects.
> > The pwg-charter-policy document makes clear that new standards efforts
> must
> > be properly defined and approved before they are added to a workgroup
> > charter.
> >
> > In order to promote the successful development of new PWG standards, all
> new
> >
> > standards development MUST begin with one or more editors producing a
> White
> >
> > Paper using the PWG Working Draft template that outlines the requirements
> > and
> >
> > possible technical solutions for the proposed standard(s) prior to
> adoption
> > by
> >
> > a PWG Workgroup or modification of any PWG Workgroup Charter. The White
> > Paper
> >
> > MUST NOT assign, reserve, or register new standards-track names or
> values.
> >
> > Multiple drafts of the White Paper MAY be produced and reviewed as
> needed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Once the White Paper is stable, a PWG Workgroup can adopt the White Paper
> > after
> >
> > a modification to its charter, a new PWG Workgroup can be chartered to
> > advance
> >
> > the White Paper, or the White Paper can be abandoned due to lack of
> >
> > participation.
> >
> >
> >
> > Addition of new work, whether to an existing PWG Workgroup or through the
> >
> > creation of a new PWG Workgroup, requires Formal Approval.
> >
> >
> >
> > Because several projects had been identified in the SM3 charter prior to
> > adoption of this policy document, we disregarded this process. I think
> that
> > was an error and suggest that, if there is anyone with an interest in the
> > projects identified in the current charter (or any other projects), they
> > initiate the process by creating a white paper that "that outlines the
> > requirements and possible technical solutions for the proposed standard".
> > Once this is refined by the SM3 workgroup, it can be put up for formal
> vote.
> >
> >
> >
> > This process may be time-consuming and tedious, but certainly no more so
> > than the wheel-spinning we have done so far. The process may show that
> there
> > is insufficient support for a given project, in which case it should not
> be
> > started.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bill Wagner
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sm3 mailing list
> > sm3 at pwg.org> > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/sm3>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>> _______________________________________________
> sm3 mailing list
>sm3 at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/sm3>>>>> _______________________________________________
> sm3 mailing list
>sm3 at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/sm3>