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

Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Mark Johnson <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> 
>>According to the FSG doc on forming LSB (and hence FSG) workgroups:
> 
> Umm... where do we say that's the document on forming "LSB workgroups"?
> 
> (There's no such thing as an LSB workgroup.  We have "workgroups" and
> workgroups may have "subgroups" or "sub-projects".)

OK, so I'm a little confused as to the hierarchy of WG 
establishment. Sorry:)
> 
>>http://members.freestandards.org/policy/fsg102-newworkgroup-draft.txt
> 
> That's for new (top-level) workgroups.  You have said "LSB" so I assume
> you want your workgroup to be part of the LSB.

Precisely. I'm sorry for not being clear on that point. The WG I'm 
proposing would be a part of LSB, and hence would its deliverables also.

> I can't speak for the rest of the board, but you are very likely to be
> asked: why isn't this part of the LSB???  If the C++ component can be
> developed inside the LSB workgroup, why can't XML/SGML?

I totally agree. But I do believe there then needs to be a separate 
subgroup to address the issues. XML (and its many related specs) is 
really a moving target and the general LSB WG membership may not 
have the expertise/experience to produce an XML/SGML module for LSB 
in a timely manner.
> 
>>P.S. FWIW, I bought the lsb-xml.org and lsb-xml-sgml.org domains, as 
>>well.
> 
> Okay, we'll want to figure that out as we go forward (or even if we
> don't, LSB is a trademark of the Free Standards Group).  How we add new
> domains for workgroups is up to Jim and our IT committee, though.

Sure, makes sense. I was simply trying to point out that I'm 
"getting all my ducks in a row", so to speak.

Cheers,
Mark

> 
> 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