From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu May 5 16:53:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 4C97AC178DC; Thu, 5 May 2011 16:53:25 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mailrelay2.lrz-muenchen.de (mailrelay2.lrz-muenchen.de [129.187.254.102]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63E3C178DA for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 16:53:23 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from postout1.mail.lrz.de ([10.156.6.18] [10.156.6.18]) by mailrelay2.lrz-muenchen.de with ESMTP; Thu, 5 May 2011 16:53:04 +0200 Received: from BADWLRZ-SWHBT1.ads.mwn.de (BADWLRZ-SWHBT1.ads.mwn.de [IPv6:2001:4ca0:0:108::125]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by postout1.mail.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F1ACB7580; Thu, 5 May 2011 16:53:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from BADWLRZ-SWMBX1.ads.mwn.de ([fe80::11b4:b130:c4e2:2d0e]) by BADWLRZ-SWHBT1.ads.mwn.de ([fe80::e42f:e9f5:bde9:f99b%17]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Thu, 5 May 2011 16:53:04 +0200 From: "Bader, Reinhold" To: "John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk" , WG5 Subject: AW: (SC22WG5.4446) PDTR on Further Interoperability Thread-Topic: (SC22WG5.4446) PDTR on Further Interoperability Thread-Index: AQHMCy6svHBFDuZGFkiZE2M19Ygj+5R+UOaw Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 14:53:03 +0000 Message-Id: <166ED263DF83324D9A3BA67FB6772B2B12423BDB@BADWLRZ-SWMBX1.ads.mwn.de> References: <20110331154109.5070CC178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20110401003328.8B70BC178DA@www2.open-std.org> <20110401132710.09AE6C178DA@www2.open-std.org> <20110404114630.48DD0C178DC@www2.open-std.org> <20110505141344.CFDE1C178DA@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20110505141344.CFDE1C178DA@www2.open-std.org> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.155.5.52] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org [mailto:owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org] Im > Auftrag von John Reid > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2011 16:14 > An: WG5 > Betreff: (SC22WG5.4446) PDTR on Further Interoperability >=20 > WG5, >=20 > This is what I said on 4 April re the TR on Further Interoperability: > > > > Well, to avoid eventual cancellation, we must move faster. Here is an > > alternative plan and I think it is better. > > > > 1. Bill creates a new draft by the end of this week that includes all > > the items that do not need discussion. > > > > 2. The interop. email group takes ownership for 3 weeks to hash out > > the other issues and create a new pdf by 1 May. > > > > 3. We have a 3-week informal WG5 ballot on whether this new version is > > ready for PDTR ballot. > > > > 4. Bill creates a further new draft based on comments and the interop. > > email group checks it. > > > > 5a. If we have reached consensus, the PDTR ballot starts in late May > > or very early in June. The goal would be to get enough PDTR feedback > > before the meeting to create a tentative DTR for issue after the PDTR > > ballot finishes. > > > > 5b. Otherwise, we work hard before and at the meeting to reach > > consensus and start the PDTR ballot soon afterwards. The "base > > document" at this point will be the version created in step 4. >=20 > Unfortunately, May 1st has passed and we are not ready for a 3-week infor= mal > WG5 ballot (item 3). Bill and I think that we need to abandon this plan. = Instead, > Bill proposes a new plan: >=20 > 1. By 13 May, Bill constructs a new draft that includes all the edits ari= sing from > our ballot that he believes are likely to achieve consensus. >=20 > 2. The new draft is reviewed by the interop. email group until the end of= May. >=20 > 3. By the beginning of June, Bill constructs a draft for use as the base = document > at the Garching meeting. This would be the consensus draft resulting from the review in 2, I assume? Any contentious items then would be processed in step 4 via the usual paper submission procedure? It might be useful to somewhat extend the usual=20 deadline for paper submission from 2 to 1 week before the meeting. Regards Reinhold >=20 > 4. The PDTR is constructed and approved during the meeting and the PDTR > formal starts soon afterwards. >=20 > Note that this is essentially the fallback position in 5b above. >=20 > It is very important to create the PDTR by the end of the Garching meetin= g. > Without this, eventual cancellation of the project is quite likely. No fu= rther > extensions are allowed. >=20 > I need to revise the announcement and agenda for the Garching meeting, si= nce > the primary objective is now the construction of the PDTR rather than rev= iewing > the PDTR Ballot comments. New documents are attached. >=20 > John. >=20 > -- > Scanned by iCritical.