Re: Creating an XML/SGML LSB Component/ Freestandards Workgroup

Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Mark Johnson <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> 
>>I've been working for the past couple years (w/ support from 
>>freestandards) to establish an LSB-XML/SGML workgroup tasked with 
>>developing an XML (& SGML) module for LSB.
>>  [...]
> 
> 
> If you want to develop an LSB module, then the LSB chair (Mats Wichmann
> <[email protected]>) is probably the correct person, not the
> Free Standards Group.

According to the FSG doc on forming LSB (and hence FSG) workgroups:

http://members.freestandards.org/policy/fsg102-newworkgroup-draft.txt

FreeStandards *is* the place to start, and so I've cc'd Jim Zemlin 
on this message.

FWIW, I've previously completed the major steps/required documents:

FSG102-1 PROBLEM DECLARATION AND SOLUTION ABSTRACT
FSG102-2b TECHNICAL GOALS OUTLINE
FSG102-3a CORE PARTICIPANTS LIST
FSG103-3b TASK OUTLINE

The proposal itself [1] addresses the above issues, but needs to 
updated, since I'm no longer requesting salary support, and my 
contact info has changed. Also the list of core particpants will 
likely have changed:

[1] http://www.dulug.duke.edu/~mark/fsg/fsg-proposal.pdf

FSG103-3c INTERIM WORKGROUP CHAIRPERSON
---------------------------------------
For statements of support, see list archives following my RFC:

https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/lsb-xml-sgml/2002-April/thread.html

FSG103-3d FLESH OUT FURTHER DETAILS
-----------------------------------
In addition to the above, I've written a relatively complete draft 
of a Process Model [2] for the workgroup, the lack of which is one 
of the main reasons the previous informal attempt failed.

[2] http://www.dulug.duke.edu/~mark/lsb-proposal/


Yes, and I do agree with Chris Yeoh who pointed out in a follow-up 
message that some of the content of the module (file placement & 
directory structure) should rightfully be contained in the FHS. The 
resulting WG can identify these bits and make recommendations to the 
FHS for inclusion in future releases.

To summarize, then, all I really need at this point is some sort of 
go-ahead from FreeStandards to proceed with the formal process of 
resubmitting the documents, identifying a current list of core 
participants, and updating the various other components of the 
workgroup application process.

At the very least, we (Dennis Grace & I) could really use either: 
(a) the password to the current <[email protected]> mailing 
list, or
(b) a new list, say <[email protected]>, & password so that 
we may move the subscriber list over from the defunct Duke list and 
resume the discussion.

I eagerly await a response from the apppropriate parties at Free 
Standards.

Thanks,
Mark

P.S. FWIW, I bought the lsb-xml.org and lsb-xml-sgml.org domains, as 
well.


> However, info@ should generate some sort of response eventually, so that
> is a problem that should be looked into.  It's probably just a case
> where the wrong people are receiving info@ or messages are not ticketed
> for response, so it's not always clear when someone has received an
> answer.
> 
> Daniel
> 

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Mark Johnson      <[email protected]>
Debian XML/SGML:  <http://debian-xml-sgml.alioth.debian.org>
Home Page:        <http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/>
GPG fp: DBEA FA3C C46A 70B5 F120  568B 89D5 4F61 C07D E242