Subject: PWG> Some Issues for the PWG Process document

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 16:40:58 PDT

The authors agreed to send any remaining comments or issues to the
PWG DL, rather than have another round amongst ourselves.

Here are my issues with the current document, that I think we all need
to discuss and agree on at the meeting in Washington:

1. 2.2 Working Group Officers, 3rd line:

I suggest that the Chair of a WG is appointed by the PWG Chair "with
consensus of the PWG"  (This latter phrase is used elsewhere for similar
appointments).

2. 2.3 PWG Meetings, 4th line (and figure legend at the end):

I suggest that voting is by *organization*, not *company*, so that non-company
organizations, such as universities and other standards groups can vote.

3. 3.5 PWG Standard, 3rd line (also table I):

General acceptance by a simple majority of the PWG participating 
organizations, i.e., they have implemented or have plans to implement
the standard.

Shouldn't this majority be the *WG* participating organizations?  Some of
our projects are not of interest to as many of the PWG participating 
organizations as are others.

4. 6.2. Formal Approval, line 1

Would it be simpler and take less steps if the Last Call was the vote
or do we really want both a Last Call for comments, comment resolution,
and then a vote?

5. 6.2. Formal Approval, lines 5 and 6

"2/3 and 85% of those casting votes"  Can a vote be "abstain"?  If yes,
then it should count as a "yes", rather than a "no", shouldn't it?
The current wording counts an "abstain" as a "no" (since it is a vote).

6. 6.2. Formal Approval, line 7

I suggest that a "no" vote must be accompanied with written specifics 
that would change the vote to a "yes".  This is common practice in other 
standards bodies that vote, such as ANSI, ISO, and IEEE.

Some Comments on the draft:

a. 3.6 Mapping to IETF Documents, lines 4 and 5

Need to switch RFC Draft Standard and RFC Proposed Standard

b. 5. Publication of PWG documents, line 3

Need to add "PWG Charter" to the list of publications that represent
formal PWG approved documents.  (Section 3 says so).

Also need to add "PWG Registrations" and "PWG Clarification" to the
list, since they also require formal approval according to section 7
which refers back to section 5.

c. 5.2. Document Editors, line 1

Add "with consensus of the WG" to the end of the first sentence about
the WG Chair appointing the editor.

d. Table I: Fourth column (Formal PWG documents), row 5 (Implementation)

Add the word "Maintenance" in front of "Updates to PWG Draft"
because the maintenance updates to the PWG Draft, if any, come during
that stage.

Remove the words "Draft and" from row 6 (Maintenance), since only
"Maintenance updates to the PWG Standard" occur during the Maintenance
stage.

---

From: "Caruso, Angelo " <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 06:12:21 PDT

Tom,

I thought IETF requires voting by *individual* rather than *company* or
*organization*. So counting individual votes would automatically put the PWG
process in sync with IETF rules.

Thanks,
Ang

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Hastings [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 7:41 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: PWG> Some Issues for the PWG Process document

I suggest that voting is by *organization*, not *company*, so that
non-company
organizations, such as universities and other standards groups can vote.

---

From: Roger K Debry <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 09:31:27 -0400

Tom,

Thanks,
Ang

Ahh, but this is not the IETF.   The PWG is really a consortium of printing
companies,
so counting company votes seems more appropriate.

Roger K deBry
Senior Technical Staff Member
Architecture and Technology
IBM Printing Systems
email: [email-masked]
phone: 1-303-924-4080

---

---

From: "Caruso, Angelo " <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 08:03:01 PDT

Roger,

But if we ever want to push PWG work through the IETF standards track, it
sure would be easier if we followed their rules to begin with. Do you have a
specific objection to counting individual votes rather than companies?

Angelo

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger K Debry [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 9:31 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: PWG> Some Issues for the PWG Process document

Tom,

Thanks,
Ang

Roger K deBry

---

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:03:00 -0400

Angelo:

When we operate as the PWG, we want to operate on a per
company/organization basis.  When operating as an IETF group, we will
operate under their rules.

**********************************************
* Don Wright                 [email-masked] *
* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances       *
* Lexmark International                      *
* 740 New Circle Rd                          *
* Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax)    *
**********************************************