dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 27 September 2016 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 17:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. we need to think about what we need to do on SVN as work on errata happens in parallel with 2.0. Any SVN mavens want to volunteer?
2. we need someone to investigate, but no one volunteered
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 27 September 2016
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Regrets: Eliot Kimber, Eric Sirois, Keith Schengli-Roberts, Joe Storbeck, Amber Swope
Standing Business
=================
Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201609/msg00014.html (Nancy Harrison, 06 September 2016)
Proposed by Kris, seconded by Dick, approved by TC
Business
========
1. Action Items
2 August 2016:
Robert: Produce initial draft of "DITA and DITA-OT" committee note
- Robert; not done yet
Kris: Schedule meeting for small group working on "Upgrading" committee note (IN PROGRESS)
23 August 2016:
Joe: Get TC instance of DITAweb updated with 1.3 DTDs; restore sync with SVN
[Joe not on call]
30 August 2016:
Eric: Review spec and suggest changes for issue raised by France Baril
Eric not on call]
Kris: Begin organizing subject scheme education for TC (IN PROGRESS)
6 September 2016
Kris: Revise subject scheme example topic pulled from errata 01
[on hold till we start working on errata 02]
2. Announcements:
New DITA TC members: None
3. SC updates
TechComm SC;
- Bob; at yesterday's mtg (joint mtg with Adoption TC), I was voted to Joann's place as co-chair. Event precipitating change was my mail advising them that the technical content portion of the spec (which is essentially 'owned' by the TechComm SC) may be moved into its own work product, so we need to split off TechComm SC from the Adoption TC into two groups, as they were originally. I'll call a mtg of Techcomm SC and decide what we need to do in terms of 2.0. Look for an email on the separate mtg; I'll post it to this TC as well.
- Stan; next Techcomm SC mtg will be an organizing mtg, to look at what's on our plate going forward.
[Scott, Nancy, Robert were added to TechComm SC interest list]
- Kris; in addition to talking about a meeting time, I would suggest this TC should give the Techcomm SC an action item to consider what's involved in having tech. content package as a separate work product for 2.0, i.e. its own spec, grammar file packaging, etc. What will that involve? Question to Robert - from a spec POV, is there anything to add to that?
- Robert; nothing now, but there will be some hard questions, and we'll need to work thru them.
Lightweight DITA (LwD) SC:
- Kris; recent informal meeting of LwD SC members to discuss future work
(attendees were Kris, Bob, Carlos, Robert, Michael). We were thinking of spec part focused on element reference for elements that are part of both LwD and full DITA. What can be single sourced? We looked especially at shrotdesc and various stylistics for shrotdesc; what is the vision for LwD? Do we want LwD content that's instantiated in XML, HTML, or Markdown? or an XML markup that can have various patterns in various formats, e.g. XML, HTML, or Markdown?
- Robert; what is the same between the two, and if so, what can se reused? The answer was 'mostly shortdesc'.
- Kris; so we need a real focus on semantic meaning, i.e., what in XML are elements. as we look at the format for our 2.0 spec. We need to tease out different kinds of content to identify what is common and not between LwD and full DITA.
- Robert; this led to a follow-up call about formatting the spec, now it's up to me to send mail to list on thoughts I had.
- Kris; that may mean we embark on work on the element ref for 2.0 fairly soon, so we'll be asking for participation, reviews, etc. from TC as a whole.
- Robert; so you might see Kris and I checking in new topics (though not new functionality) for 2.0.
- Kris; and our attempts at
ActionItem; we need to think about what we need to do on SVN as work on errata happens in parallel with 2.0. Any SVN mavens want to volunteer?
- Chris; can we use something like Git, rather than SVN?
- Kris; we can open that conversation. Git has better branching abilities, but we have TC members who aren't comfortable with it. That's my one concern.
- Robert; It would be nice to know what OASIS is offering. I don't know if OASIS is opening up specs to be in Git, as well as other work products.
- Kris; will someone on TC check out whether they're offerring Git as an alternative to SVN? And what are the pros and cons of doing that?
- Chris; i would, but am pretty busy right now.
- Kris; anyone with time or bandwidth?
- Stan; if just yes or now, can do, if mo re complicated, can't
ActionItem; we need someone to investigate, but no one volunteered
- Kris; we need to ascertain people's level of comfort with Git.
- Robert; my experience with Git has been very positive. but I'm not sure that what we want to do in 2.0 is branching; we may want to start a new design, so we may need a whole new structure anyway.
- Kris; would git's ability for branching help us with future errata?
- Robert; it would certainly be helpful for that.
- Kris; we're looking for someone to help out with that.
4. Subcommittee leadership
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201609/msg00043.html (Eberlein, 27 September 2016)
Kris; I want to suggest formally that leadership of each of our SCs include at least obe voting member of this TC.
- Scott; I support that proposal. We've had a similar rule on DocBook TC, so work can be coordinated in both directions.
- Kris; thoughts from others?
- Stan; I support it as well. we might need a scrum of SC chairs
- Kris; SCs are SCs of main TC; anything that moves forward has to go thru the main TC. I'm just trying to think about how we move forward with more componentized work products.
- Nancy; we saw the problem this would be addressing with the semidonductor SC (SIDSC);
- Robert; if there's no connection with the main TC, there's a sense of a lack of connection with main TC, a sense that the SC work isn't recognized.
- Nancy; we also need to talk about what to do about a working SC that creates a work product that then loses its membership...
- Stan; we need some periodic review of SCs and how to make a change, and how to deal with the work products going forward.
- Kris; I move that SCs of this TC must have leadership that are voting members of the main TC.
[seconded by Nancy, no objections, motion carries]
- Kris; let's continue with a broader discussion of maintenance and governance of SCs.
- Robert; what happens when a champion goes away, or the whole SC?
- Kris; we have an open question, and a concrete example in the machinery task, What do we do with those for 2.0? What do we do with the L&T SC and L&T work products.
- Robert; I think we came down with this:
If there's no one to update it, it's not part of 2.0. L&T is different, because it seems there are still interested parties. Is that so?
- Robert; I don't remember any formal discussion.
- Don; we had discussions early in the life of this TC about the likelihood of having domains that moved out into specific industries. If we can find an industry owner, the domain doesn't need to be maintained forever within this TC. We were looking at having a 'domain registry' context,
- Robert; we had overly optimistic discussions that there would be many industry specializations, and we'd maintain them. At this point, not only don't we want to amintain them, we also don't want to go out and find an industry owner for them.
- Kris; I think this dovetails with another thing. Historically, we thought there would be lots of specs and a registry of specs and tools for them. That has not happened. we don't know whether it could ever come into play, but I have a lot of doubt about it.
- Don; it's not the scope of the TC to create that type of infrastructure.
- Kris; I have some general thoughts about SCs. As chair, I've been involved in closing inactive SCs. and been very slow to open new ones. New SCs should have a clear charter, clear leadership, and a subset of active TC members who are interested parties. The more that SCs have clear charters and clear deliverables, the better.
- Robert; For example, Techcomm is really an industry spec, and we have the people with the knowledge and desire to own it. Maybe L&T will be the same. but we don't want any more 'one-person' industry specs like the machine-industry spec.
- Kris; Techcomm is a good example; within the TC we have a wealth of info and desire wrt techcomm; it would be nice to have that for L&T, but the jury is still out on that.
- Robert; after last week, talking about SC leadership, I contacted John Hunt; he'd be happy to either pass on his leadership in L&T, or see the SC closed.
- Kris; so another agenda item; do we have new leadership for L&T, or do we want to close it? I want to wait and see what they come back with. Keith and I will also discuss this with Ixiasoft clients who are currently using that package at their conference next week. Are there folks here on the call who have clients who use L&T?
- Maria; we're using a little piece of it - learningassessment - at healthwise.
- Scott; we're not currently using it, but have plans to use it at Boeing/Jepson.
- Kris; so we'll continue to have this item, especially wrt L&T, moving forward, we may also be tracking leadership for LwD, Michael can no longer be on the main TC calls; he's still involved with LwD, but since he can't be a TC voting member, we need to get some LwD leadership who can keep the SC aligned with the main TC. Any other thoughts on SCs before we move on?
- Stan; what about the Help SC?
- Kris; we were going to talk about it coming back from hiatus; now it's time to decide whether it's time to close that SC as well.
- Stan; there have only been about 4-5 active folks; I can check with them
5. Continuing item: DITA 1.3 errata
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA%201.3%20Errata
DITA-1.3-errata-schedule
Catalog errata that did not get updated
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201609/msg00006.html (Anderson, 8 September 2016)
Update from Chet
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201609/msg00022.html (Ensign, 14 September 2016)
Latest query from TC:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201609/msg00042.html (Eberlein, 27 September 2016)
- Kris: we're still waiting for OASIS; they're still working on it. I'm hoping they'll put it out for public review real soon now. Once it's out, we can deal with stuff we already know about that needs to be fixed by making public comments.
Other;
listening sessions: currently listening sessions are being planned for:
Portland; Amber and Nancy
Denver: Scott
Austin; Don, Joe
RTP; Kris
[check adoption TC site for more info]
11:35 ET Close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]