2008-05-07 Meeting minutes

[Daniela Bourges Waldegg <dbw@zurich.ibm.com>]

  (My apollogies - I had a bad phone connection and failed to  
recognize the voices of some of the people behind the comments)

> Agenda:
> 1. Call to order
> - Verify Minute Taker
> - Roll Call
> - Reminder: Online Chat Room, we need one

1. They can be useful and they're trivial to setup. Agreement to use  
OASIS room (Soaphub)

> 2. Reading/Approving minutes from May 1 & 2nd F2F

2.  Tony did not receive on time the minutes of the second day of F2F  
and was waiting to have minutes of both days in order to distribute  
them.
-> There was no approving of the minutes. Item was deferred to next  
meeting.
-> Tony will circulate minutes (potentially in two parts - day 1 and  
day 2)
Notes:
* Dee/Jeff  sent email with minutes of 2nd day during the call.
** Bill Barnhill (who took those minutes) still has trouble sending e- 
mail to the list
* F2F meeting was adjourned at noon on Friday, May 2nd.

> 3. TC Logistics
> - Reminder: Next scheduled meeting in 1 week

3. Agreement on continuing with weekly meeting until the TC decides we  
don't need them that often.

> 4. Issues list - Need a Issues list Editor

>
> - Actions
> - Issues

4. Daniela volunteered for Issues list editor (list of open issues and  
actions to be taken)
* current open issue: settle changes to charter
* actions: see action items of today's meeting

> 5. Charter Discussions
5.a. Tony summarized the actions taken after F2F meeting:
he asked the question to OASIS staff about how to proceed. Mary's  
recommendation was sent out to the list by Tony (in summary: the TC  
should vote to decide whether the proposed changes constitute a change  
of scope or not, and then vote on the changes themselves); Tony sent  
out a Word document, prior to today's call, with the charter and all  
the changes proposed during F2F.
* Dorothy raised the issue whether the document sent by Tony reflects  
the agreement from the F2F
* A request was made by Jeff to version documents in the future

5.b. Tony went through each change in the document:
* change 1 - accepted without discussion

* change 2 (introductory paragraph to problem scope proposed by Hal at  
F2F)-
** Dorothy raised a point about the usage of the word "solution" in  
the new paragraph - no further discussion on this point.
** Dorothy claims there is ambiguity with scores and values (her  
proposed change discussed later).

* change 3 - accepted without discussion

* change 4 (scope of work) -
** Tony read the proposed changed scope (initially proposed by Bill  
and ammended at F2F by the group)
** Frederick: what's the implication of the word calculation? - does  
wording preclude multi-valued result? Proposed  to change it to plural.
** Related issue: in the enumeration of deliverables, change scores  
into calculations if change of wording is approved. Agreement to first  
settle the wording of the scope and then address the deliverables.

* change 4 (dates) - accepted (corrections of two typos - Decemberr  
and change 2010 to 2009)

* change 5 (intended audience) - accepted without discussion

5.c. On depth discussion of change 4 - scope of work (wording issue -  
score, calculation, value...)
** An issue was raised by (?) about other information that needs to be  
shared in addition to reputation calculation, e.g. how reliable the  
calculation is
*** Tony: what the framework will allow is different from what the  
specification concerns. Restrict the scope of the spec to what's doable.
*** Point by (?): It could be only a matter of developing an  
additional schema or extending reputation value with additional  
context information.
*** Bill: we can provide a framework for apps to define their context  
(and not define the context ourselves). A schema can describe the  
different use cases and leave the detail to implementors.
*** Frederick: will the charter allow this approach?
*** (?) points out that reputation calculation is a generic term
** Jeff made a proposal for new wording of this paragraph and sent it  
to the list
*** Mike: it is acceptable. Is this targeting attribute certificates  
as reputation data?
*** Dorothy: finds wording better, but there is still a lack of  
intermediary results
*** Tony: what we specify is not everything that can be done

5.d. Discussion of Dorothy's proposed change, sent to list prior to  
today's meeting. The change is in the paragraph introduced by [change 2]
* Change addresses Dorothy's concern wrt singularity of the word  
score, finality and applicability
* Frederick  concerned about singularity
* Mike points out a contradiction in the proposed text. The change  
might not fit with Jeff's proposed wording


> 6. Other business

6. none

> 7. Roll Call Additions
> 8. Adjournment


Action items:
----------------
-> Dorothy and Jeff will work together on an ammended version with  
their two proposed changes
-> Tony will update and circulate to the list prior to next meeting.