[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Groups - PLCS Meeting 50 Teleconference modified
Minutes from the PLCS Meeting 50 Teleconference held on 2010-02-25. -- Mr. Christopher Kreiler PLCS Meeting 50 Teleconference has been modified by Mr. Christopher Kreiler Date: Thursday, 25 February 2010 Time: 03:00pm - 04:30pm GMT Event Description: Meeting 50 Teleconference 25 February 2010 - 1600 CET, 1500 UK, 1500 GMT, 1000 US Eastern, and 0700 US Pacific Time - for maximum 90 minutes. Dial-in numbers & passcodes: PARTICIPANTS PIN NUMBER: 499596 # Country Number France 0805 110 496 Germany 0800 101 4935 Italy 800 985 528 Norway 21033439 Sweden 0200 895 376 USA 1866 874 0924 UK Local Call 0845 144 0023 Std Int Dial In +44 (0) 1452 542 437 Agenda: Objective The principal objectives of this session are to: (1) accept the Task DEX as a Committee Draft and (2) approve the Task DEX committee draft for release for a 15 day public review, in accordance with the relevant OASIS procedures. It is important that all voting members of the PLCS TC participate in this meeting so that a quorum is achieved, and that the necessary Full Majority vote is achieved. 1. Welcome by Chair 2. Roll call please check your status on attached spreadsheet 3. Presentation and discussion of PLCS Implementer Forum (Jim Colson) 4. Introduction of Task DEX changes (Tim Turner / Phil Rutland) 5. Vote to accept Task DEX as a Committee Draft (requires positive vote from >50% of all voting members must be present on call no proxies) 6. Vote to submit Task DEX for second public review (requires positive vote from >50% of all voting members must be present on call no proxies) 7. Future meeting schedule, hosts 8. Any Other Business Reference material from "Governing the OASIS Technical Committee Process" 2.13 TC Voting TC votes require a Simple Majority Vote to pass, except as noted elsewhere in this Process. All TC ballots requiring a Special Majority Vote for approval must be conducted by the TC Administrator; the TC Chair shall notify the TC Administrator that a motion has been made which requires a Special Majority Vote, and the TC Administrator shall set up and conduct the ballot. Eligibility: A Member of a TC must have voting rights to make or second a motion, and must have voting rights at the time a ballot is opened in order to vote on that ballot. Every Voting Member of a TC has a single vote. Organizations do not vote in TCs. Proxies shall not be allowed in TC voting. Electronic Voting: TCs may conduct electronic ballots, either by using the TCs general mail list or the publicly archived electronic voting functionality provided by OASIS. The minimum period allowed for electronic voting shall be seven days; the TC may specify a longer voting period for a particular electronic ballot. Any Specification Ballot conducted as an electronic ballot must permit each voter to choose "yes", "no" or "abstain." A motion to open an electronic ballot must be made in a TC meeting unless the TC has adopted a standing rule to allow this motion to be made on the TCs general email list. When such a rule has been adopted, motions made on the mail list must also be seconded and discussed on that list. 2.18 Specification Quality All documents and other files produced by the TC, including specifications at any level of approval, must use the OASIS file naming scheme, and must include the OASIS copyright notice. All document files must be written using the OASIS document authoring templates, which shall be published and maintained by the TC Administrator. The name of any specification may not include any trademarks or service marks not owned by OASIS. A specification that is approved by the TC at the Public Review Draft, Committee Specification or OASIS Standard level must include a separate section, listing a set of numbered conformance clauses, to which any implementation of the specification must adhere in order to claim conformance to the specification (or any optional portion thereof). A specification that is approved by the TC at any level must include a list of people who participated in the development of the specification. This list shall be initially compiled by the Chair, and any Member of the TC may add or remove their names from the list by request. A specification that is approved by the TC at any level must clearly indicate whether each reference in the specification to a document or artifact is a Normative Reference. Editable formats of all versions of TC documents must be delivered to the TCs document repository. TC Working Drafts may be in any format (i.e. produced by any application). All TC-approved versions of documents (i.e. Committee Drafts, Public Review Drafts, and Committee Specifications) must be delivered to the TCs document repository in the (1) editable source, (2) HTML or XHTML, and (3) PDF formats; and the TC must explicitly designate one of those delivered formats as the authoritative document. Any links published by the TC shall be to the HTML, XHTML and/or PDF formats stored using repositories and domain names owned by OASIS and as approved by the TC Administrator. All normative computer language definitions that are part of the specification, such as XML instances, schemas and Java(TM) code, including fragments of such, must be well-formed and valid, and must be provided in separate plain text files. Each text file must be referenced from the specification. Where any definition in these separate files disagrees with the definition found in the specification, the definition in the separate file prevails. A specification may be composed of any number of files of different types, though any such multi-part specification must have a single specification name and version number. Irrespective of the number and status of the constituent parts, the specification as a whole must be approved by a single TC ballot. Any change made to a specification requires a new version or revision number, except for changes made to (a) the approval status, (b) the date, (c) the URIs of the specification as appropriate, (d) the running header/footer, and (e) any approved Designated Cross-Reference Changes, all of which must be made after the approval of the specification as a Committee Draft, Committee Specification, or OASIS Standard. Section 3. Standards Approval Process 3.1 Approval of a Committee Draft The TC may at any stage during development of a specification approve the specification as a Committee Draft. The approval of a Committee Draft shall require a Full Majority Vote of the TC. The TC may approve a specification, revise it, and re-approve it any number of times as a Committee Draft. 3.2. Public Review Before the TC can approve its Committee Draft as a Committee Specification the TC must conduct a public review of the work. The decision by the TC to submit the specification for public review requires a Full Majority Vote, and must be accompanied by a recommendation from the TC of external stakeholders who should be notified of the review. The Committee Draft approved to go to review shall be called a Public Review Draft. The public review must be announced by the TC Administrator to the OASIS Membership list and optionally on other public mail lists; the TC Administrator shall at the same time issue a call for IPR disclosure. Comments from non-TC Members must be collected via the TCs archived public comment facility; comments made through any other means shall not be accepted. The TC must acknowledge the receipt of each comment, track the comments received, and publish to its primary e-mail list the disposition of each comment at the end of the review period. No changes may be made to the Public Review Draft during a review. If changes are required the specification must be withdrawn from review then resubmitted. The TC may conduct any number of review cycles (i.e. approval to send a Committee Draft to Public Review, collecting comments, making edits to the specification, etc.). The first public review of a specification must take place for a minimum of 60 days, and any subsequent reviews must be held for a minimum of 15 days. Changes made to a specification after a review must be clearly identified in any subsequent review, and the subsequent review shall be limited in scope to changes made in the previous review. Before starting another review cycle the specification must be re-approved as a Committee Draft and then approved to go to public review by the TC. If Substantive Changes are made to the specification after the public review, whether as a result of public review comments or from TC Member input, then the TC must conduct another review cycle. The specification may not be considered for approval by the TC as a Committee Specification until it has undergone a review cycle during which it has received no comments that result in Substantive Changes to the specification. 3.3 Approval of a Committee Specification After the public review of a Public Review Draft the TC may approve the specification as a Committee Specification. If any comments have been received during the most recent Public Review period, that vote may not commence any earlier than 7 days after the last day of that Public Review. The approval of a Committee Specification shall require a Special Majority Vote. The TC Chair shall notify the TC Administrator that the TC is ready to vote on the approval of the specification, and provide to the TC Administrator the location of the editable versions of the specification files. The TC Administrator shall set up and conduct the ballot to approve the Committee Specification. 3.4 Approval of an OASIS Standard Simultaneously with the approval of a Committee Specification or at a later date, and after three Statements of Use have been presented to the TC, a TC may resolve by Special Majority Vote to submit the Committee Specification to the Membership of OASIS for consideration as an OASIS Standard. Upon resolution of the TC to submit the specification, its Chair shall submit the following items to the TC Administrator: (a) Links to the approved Committee Specification in the TCs document repository, and any appropriate supplemental documentation for the specification, both of which must be written using the OASIS templates. The specification may not have been changed between its approval as a Committee Specification and its submission to OASIS for consideration as an OASIS Standard, except for the changes on the title page and running footer noting the approval status and date. (b) The editable version of all files that are part of the Committee Specification; (c) Certification by the TC that all schema and XML instances included in the specification, whether by inclusion or reference, including fragments of such, are well formed, and that all expressions are valid; (d) A clear English-language summary of the specification; (e) A statement regarding the relationship of this specification to similar work of other OASIS TCs or other standards developing organizations; (f) The Statements of Use presented above; (g) The beginning and ending dates of the public review(s), a pointer to the announcement of the public review(s), and a pointer to an account of each of the comments/issues raised during the public review period(s), along with its resolution; (h) An account of and results of the voting to approve the specification as a Committee Specification, including the date of the ballot and a pointer to the ballot; (i) An account of or pointer to votes and comments received in any earlier attempts to standardize substantially the same specification, together with the originating TCs response to each comment; (j) A pointer to the publicly visible comments archive for the originating TC; (k) A pointer to any minority reports delivered by one or more Members who did not vote in favor of approving the Committee Specification, which report may include statements regarding why the member voted against the specification or that the member believes that Substantive Changes were made which have not gone through public review; or certification by the Chair that no minority reports exist. The above submission must be made by the 15th of any month to the TC Administrator, who shall have until the end of the month to complete administrative processing and checking for completeness and correctness of the submission. If the submission is incomplete it shall be rejected but may be resubmitted at a later time. The TC that originated the specification may resolve by Special Majority Vote to withdraw the proposed specification at any point after it is submitted to the TC Administrator for administrative processing and before the start of the voting period. No part of the submission may be changed or altered in any way after being submitted to the TC Administrator, including by Errata or corrigenda. Errata, corrigenda or other changes to a Committee Specification are not permitted after its submission for OASIS Standard approval; if changes are required the Committee Specification must be withdrawn by the TC, edited, re-approved as a Committee Specification, and then may be resubmitted as a proposed OASIS Standard. Proposed changes of any kind to a Committee Draft or Committee Specification may be maintained by a Technical Committee, but do not have any approval status until incorporated into a revised Committee Draft or Committee Specification. The TC Administrator shall submit the proposal to the OASIS Membership by the first day of the following month. The first 15 days of that month shall be used by the membership to familiarize themselves with the submission. Voting shall start on the 16th of the month. The voting representatives of those OASIS Organizational Members who were members at the beginning of the familiarization period are eligible to vote, and must cast their ballots by the end of the month. In votes upon proposed OASIS Standards, each OASIS Organizational Member shall be entitled to cast one vote. Votes shall be cast via the publicly archived electronic voting facility supplied by OASIS. Ballots shall be publicly visible during voting and may be changed up until the end of the voting period. The results of a vote on a proposed standard shall be provided to the membership and to the TC no later than seven days following the close of the voting period. If at the end of the voting period at least 15 percent of the voting OASIS Membership has voted to approve the proposed standard, and if no votes have been cast to disapprove the proposed standard, it shall become an OASIS Standard immediately following the end of the voting period. If negative votes have been cast amounting to 25 percent or more of the votes cast, or if less than 15 percent of the voting OASIS Membership has cast positive votes to approve the proposed standard, the ballot is deemed to have failed and the submission fails. However, if negative votes are cast amounting to less than 25 percent of the votes that have been cast, the TC shall be notified of the negative votes, after which the TC shall have 30 days to take one of the following actions by Resolution of a Special Majority Vote: (a) request the TC Administrator to approve the specification as submitted despite the negative votes; (b) withdraw the submission entirely; or (c) submit an amended specification, in which case the amended submission shall be considered as if it were a new submission, except that information regarding previous votes and any disposition of comments received in previous votes shall accompany the amended submission. If the originating TC upon notification of negative votes takes no formal action within the 30 days allocated for consideration of the results, then the specification shall not become an OASIS Standard. Failure of a ballot for any reason shall not prevent a later version of the same specification from being submitted again as specified in this section. 3.5 Approved Errata A TC may approve a set of Errata to an OASIS Standard as "Approved Errata" to the corrected specification by: (a) Adopting the set of proposed corrections as a Committee Draft, in the form of a list of changes, and optionally accompanied by a copy of the original specification text marked to incorporate the proposed changes. (b) Confirming by Full Majority Vote that the proposed corrections do not constitute a Substantive Change. (c) Submitting the proposed corrections for a 15-day public review, and completing that review, pursuant to Section 3.2. (d) After the public review, confirming the proposed corrections as Approved Errata by a Full Majority Vote. Once approved, the Approved Errata shall be with the specification it corrects, in any publication of that specification. Disposition of Approved Errata must be identified in the subsequent Public Review Draft of the corrected specification. A TC may not adopt Approved Errata to an OASIS Standard more than once in any consecutive six-month period. Current member status as of 2010-20-09 First Name Last Name Role Company Voting Level Sean Barker Voting Member BAE SYSTEMS plc 1 Howard Mason Chair BAE SYSTEMS plc 1 Trine Hansen Voting Member Det Norske Veritas (DNV)* 1 Fredrik Larsen Voting Member Det Norske Veritas (DNV)* 1 Rob Bodington Voting Member Eurostep AB* 1 Jochen Haenisch Voting Member Jotne EPM Technology* 1 Tim Turner Voting Member LSC Group Ltd* 1 Ron Kolakowski Voting Member ManTech Enterprise Integration Center (e-IC)* 1 Christopher Kreiler Secretary ManTech Enterprise Integration Center (e-IC)* 1 Leif Gyllstrom Voting Member Saab AB 1 Mats Nilsson Voting Member Swedish Defence Materiel Administration* 1 Phil Rutland Voting Member UK Ministry of Defence Technical Information* 1 Jerry Smith Chair US Department of Defense (DoD)* 1 James Colson Voting Member USAMC Logistics Support Activity* 1 Scot Motquin Voting Member USAMC Logistics Support Activity* 1 John Peer Voting Member USAMC Logistics Support Activity* 1 Total 16 First Name Last Name Role Company Voting Level DELAUNAY Jean-Yves Member Airbus 1 Tore Hartvigsen Member Det Norske Veritas (DNV)* 1 Nils Sandsmark Member Det Norske Veritas (DNV)* 1 Peter Bergstrom Member Eurostep AB* 1 Simon Dick Member Eurostep AB* 1 Magnus Farneland Member Eurostep AB* 1 Brad Harris Member Eurostep AB* 1 Torbjorn Holm Member Eurostep AB* 1 Rob Howard Member Eurostep AB* 1 Mattias Johansson Member Eurostep AB* 1 Magnus Nerman Member Eurostep AB* 1 David Price Member Eurostep AB* 1 Jonas Rosn Member Eurostep AB* 1 Nigel Shaw Member Eurostep AB* 1 Krister Simon Member Eurostep AB* 1 Phil Spiby Member Eurostep AB* 1 Vino Tarandi Member Eurostep AB* 1 Mike Ward Member Eurostep AB* 1 Steve Yates Member Eurostep AB* 1 Audun Bentsen Member Jotne EPM Technology* 1 Nicolai Friis Member Jotne EPM Technology* 1 Jorulv Rangnes Member Jotne EPM Technology* 1 Stephen Foster Member LSC Group Ltd* 1 Timothy King Member LSC Group Ltd* 1 Ann Meads Member LSC Group Ltd* 1 Nigel Newling Member LSC Group Ltd* 1 Ian Sloss Member LSC Group Ltd* 1 Tor Arne Irgens Member Norwegian Defence Logistics Organization* 1 Adrian Blenkiron Member Rolls-Royce plc* 1 Carolyn Cox Member Rolls-Royce plc* 1 Carl Wilen Member Saab AB 1 Mats Elgh Member Swedish Defence Materiel Administration* 1 Tom Hendrix Member The Boeing Company* 1 Andy Burden Member UK Ministry of Defence Technical Information* 1 Martin Gibson Member UK Ministry of Defence Technical Information* 1 Steven Lapsley Member UK Ministry of Defence Technical Information* 1 Tim Carpenter Member US Department of Defense (DoD)* 1 Raj Iyer Member US Department of Defense (DoD)* 1 Bryant Allen Member USAMC Logistics Support Activity* 1 Total 39 First Name Last Name Role Company Voting Level Mary McRae OASIS Staff Contact OASIS * 1 Diana Helander Observer Adobe Systems 1 laurent bonet Observer Airbus 1 hugues caubel Observer Airbus 1 Franck DULUC Observer Airbus 1 Kalle Hagstrom Observer BAE SYSTEMS plc 1 Roger Ljung Observer BAE SYSTEMS plc 1 Thomas Malloy Observer BAE SYSTEMS plc 1 Jan Ohman Observer BAE SYSTEMS plc 1 William Burkett Observer Booz Allen Hamilton* 1 Amit Pandey Observer Capgemini 1 Terrance David Observer Cisco Systems, Inc.* 1 Haakon Knudsen Observer Det Norske Veritas (DNV)* 1 Atle Kvalheim Observer Det Norske Veritas (DNV)* 1 Leif Tonning Observer Det Norske Veritas (DNV)* 1 Boye Tranum Observer Det Norske Veritas (DNV)* 1 Masaru Suzuki Observer Electronic Commerce Promotion Council of Japan 1 Andrew Vernon Observer Epitomy Solutions Ltd. 1 Kasper Rasmussen Observer IBM 1 Cobus Wasserman Observer IBM 1 Robert Black* Observer Individual 1 Kjell Bengtsson Observer Jotne EPM Technology* 1 James Martin Observer Jotne EPM Technology* 1 Timothy Boland Observer Lockheed Martin* 1 Mike Erickson Observer Lockheed Martin* 1 Paul Kingswood Observer Lockheed Martin* 1 Robert McBride Observer Lockheed Martin* 1 Pamela Rooney Observer Lockheed Martin* 1 James Nyambayo Observer LSC Group Ltd* 1 Malcolm Regler Observer LSC Group Ltd* 1 Andrew Rorison Observer LSC Group Ltd* 1 Colin Tweedie Observer LSC Group Ltd* 1 Dale Kauffman Observer ManTech Enterprise Integration Center (e-IC)* 1 Mark Persinger Observer ManTech Enterprise Integration Center (e-IC)* 1 Sandy TeWalt Observer ManTech Enterprise Integration Center (e-IC)* 1 Vebjorn Smaberg Observer Norwegian Defence Logistics Organization* 1 Ragnar Underland Observer Norwegian Defence Logistics Organization* 1 Jorn Vang Observer Norwegian Defence Logistics Organization* 1 James Bryce Clark Observer OASIS * 1 Robin Cover Observer OASIS * 1 Mike Day Observer Rolls-Royce plc* 1 Jan Andersson Observer Saab AB 1 Johan Carlson Observer Saab AB 1 Goran Rydman Observer Saab AB 1 Johannes Kjellstrm Observer Siemens AG 1 Joed Dougherty Observer The Boeing Company* 1 Kevin Hendricks Observer The Boeing Company* 1 David McCoy Observer The Boeing Company* 1 Joe Phelan Observer The Boeing Company* 1 Rob Austen Observer UK Ministry of Defence Technical Information* 1 Tony Hickish Observer UK Ministry of Defence Technical Information* 1 John Lawless Observer UK Ministry of Defence Technical Information* 1 Alex McNicoll Observer UK Ministry of Defence Technical Information* 1 Richard Brewer Observer US Department of Defense (DoD)* 1 Steven Stelk Observer USAMC Logistics Support Activity* 1 Total 55 Grand Total 110 Minutes: 1. Welcome by Chair Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting Purpose of the meeting is to discuss proposal for PLCS Implementors Forum and determine way forward for the Task DEX 2. Roll call please check your status on attached spreadsheet See attendance_plcs_Mtg50_2010-02-25.xls The meeting did achieve a quorum Meeting Statistics Quorum rule 51% of voting members Achieved quorum true Counts toward voter eligibility true Individual Attendance Members: 17 of 102 (16%) Voting Members: 11 of 16 (68%) (used for quorum calculation) Company Attendance Companies: 12 of 26 (46%) Voting Companies: 9 of 11 (81%) Meeting Attendees Name Company Status Sean Barker BAE SYSTEMS plc Group Member Howard Mason BAE SYSTEMS plc Group Member Nils Sandsmark Det Norske Veritas (DNV) Guest Fredrik Larsen Det Norske Veritas (DNV)* Group Member Rob Bodington Eurostep AB* Group Member Kjell Bengtsson Jotne EPM Technology* Group Member Jochen Haenisch Jotne EPM Technology* Group Member James Martin Jotne EPM Technology* Group Member Timothy Boland Lockheed Martin* Group Member Ann Meads LSC Group Ltd* Group Member Tim Turner LSC Group Ltd* Group Member Ron Kolakowski ManTech Enterprise Integration Center (e-IC)* Group Member Name Company Status Christopher Kreiler ManTech Enterprise Integration Center (e-IC)* Group Member Tor Arne Irgens Norwegian Defence Logistics Organization* Group Member Gerry Graves SCRA Guest Phil Rosche SCRA Guest Mats Elgh Swedish Defence Materiel Administration* Group Member Phil Rutland UK Ministry of Defence Technical Information* Group Member Jerry Smith US Department of Defense (DoD)* Group Member James Colson USAMC Logistics Support Activity* Group Member 3. Presentation and discussion of PLCS Implementer Forum (Jim Colson) Jim Colson introduced Phil Rosche and Gerry Graves from SCRA who presented ideas on forming a PLCS Implementer Forum (see PLCS-IF_from_Whitepaper_Update (3).ppt) Jim Colson to coordinate implementers forum Provides feedback to SDOs on needs for extensions and changes May have non-disclosure agreement among participants Have not identified a fee structure Does testing need to be only in U.S.? No given technology, could be done remotely. Face-to-face meetings can be held in Europe Can we test a specification rather than an implementation? Yes it can be done. DEXs about file data exchange rather than services. Will architecture support file based exchanges? Should PLCS TC pursue? Cost is important. Are members paying for governance? Some infrastructure investments will probably need to be made. DoD may be able to provide funding. DoD funding hopeful based on reality check. Initial estimate for first 15 months is $500k. Need to establish business model for sustaining service after the launch period. Need to promote our successes! Need to establish fees and/or provision of labour/services in lieu of fees Action item 50/1: Flag issues and requirements for implementers' forum. Send to Jim Colson (All) Action item 50/2: Estimate of costs and business model on how this will be self-sustaining (Jim Colson and TOG) 4. Introduction of Task DEX changes (Tim Turner / Phil Rutland) Previous version sent out for public comment included the Aviation DEX and Task DEX Next draft containing only Task DEX issued for comment on 11 February Comment resolution only focused on Task DEX. Excluded any issues not involved with Task DEX, i.e. DEXLib, reference data, checklists, etc. Looked at 235 issues o Deferred 22 o Rejected 6 o Documented in issues package included as a meeting reference document (BCR1_issues_disposition.xls-2010-02-11.zip) Discovered problem with DEX build. A couple of files were missing. Also had to hand-edit out the Aviation DEX and Help Sections Received additional issues from Eurostep and Jotne during the Task DEX review period. Responses provided by Task DEX editor for discussion at meeting. (See eurostep_issues_v001_tjt_response_V001.doc and Jotne_comments_DEX3_tjt_response_v001.doc) 5. Vote to accept Task DEX as a Committee Draft (requires positive vote from >50% of all voting members must be present on call no proxies) Before we go out for public review it is desirable to not have any comments that result in substantive changes otherwise another cycle will be required TOG whatever we put out, must have syntax and semantic quality that will work. Two additional collections of issues raised since 11 Feb (Eurostep and Jotne) Additional issues derived from initial public comment were raised at ballot comment resolution meetings XML schema doesn't compile and other major issues which may result in substantive change still exist Other files need to be checked in. Need to provide an XML schema that is valid Jotne doesn't feel that any of their comments are show stoppers Approve for public review? Do regeneration and then sent out? Eurostep has objections and would like to see another draft before submitting for public review. Are we going to leave reference data as classes? Yes, asked to include them Best to wait until changes are made that address recent comments, then call a further teleconference/webex to review changes. Schedule teleconference 2010-03-12 to consider forwarding Task DEX for public review Action item 50/3: Correct and regenerate Task DEX for review. Schedule webex to review changes (Tim Turner) 6. Vote to submit Task DEX for second public review (requires positive vote from >50% of all voting members must be present on call no proxies) No discussion as decision was to have another review and update Task DEX 7. Future meeting schedule, hosts 2010-03-12 next teleconference 8. Any Other Business No other business 9. Open Action Items Meeting Date and Number Action Item # Action Item Responsibility Closed 14 Apr 2005 15 20 Chair(Howard Mason) to check with OASIS, James Clark, to see if list of organizations that provide PLCS services can be done Howard Mason OPEN 29 Sep 2005 19 8 Nigel Shaw to look into the types of XML schemas being covered by et.gov, and given the changing state of P28e2, provide feedback on whether the OASIS PLCS TC should offer material to et.gov. Nigel Shaw Awaiting first DEX 10 Jan 2006 22 12 Recheck to see if posting material and a link to the PLCS ePortal would be beneficial Nigel Shaw Awaiting first DEX 7 Sep 2006 26 1 Continue to track activities of OASIS Codelist TC for impact on reference data requirements Nigel Shaw OPEN 31 Oct 2006 27 4 Establish contact with OASIS Web Services TC and make PLCS Web Services visible within OASIS Howard Mason Rob Bodington Nigel Shaw OPEN 31 Oct 2006 27 5 Review and comment on the level of granularity for PLCS Web Services All OPEN 31 Oct 2006 27 6 Determine publication method for PLCS Web Services Howard Mason Rob Bodington OPEN 30 Aug 2007 33 2 Members are requested to develop a one-page information sheet on their implementation projects for posting on the OASIS PLCS TC website All STANDING ACTION 11 Mar 2008 37 2 Pull together the revised proposal for the implementers forum for discussion for the next telecom. Jim Colson OPEN 11 Mar 2008 37 5 Document DEX development proposals All STANDING ACTION 23 Oct 2008 41 2 Members interested in developing the Airbus TDP DEX are requested to contact Melanie Baudisch at EADS MAS +49 84 59 81 78 943 melanie.baudisch@eads.com All OPEN 23 Oct 2008 41 3 CORE Team members are requested to work with Bryant Allen and Trine Hansen to resolve comments CORE Team OPEN 23 Oct 2008 41 4 Reference data library project review ballot comments for project applicability and send out historical documents for review and comment Mats Nilsson OPEN 15 Dec 2008 42 2 Check on next release date for PLCS Web Services Nigel Shaw OPEN 15 Dec 2008 42 4 Send list of events and dates to Secretariat for posting on OASIS website. All STANDING ACTION 6 Apr 2009 44 1 TOG to list competencies for TOG membership TOG OPEN 18 Sep 2009 46 1 Provide Tor Arne with any inputs to expand the PLCS Activity Model All OPEN 18 Sep 2009 46 2 Provide inputs and estimates for the resource spreadsheet including resolution of ballot comments, additional one-off costs, development of reference data, capabilities, and templates, and any additional items for completion of CORE Tasks CORE Team OPEN 20 Oct 2009 47 1 Finish TC core activities with time and costs spreadsheet to include DEX development costs Chris Kreiler Rob Bodington OPEN 25 Nov 2009 48 1 Explore opportunity for ASD DEXes to be published by OASIS and referenced from S3000L (Leif Gyllstrom) Leif Gyllstrom OPEN 25 Nov 2009 48 2 Send links to Gartner presentations at PDT Europe and distribute/post on OASIS PLCS TC webpage Rob Bodington Chris Kreiler Complete 21 Jan 2010 49 1 Clean list of voting members based on OASIS voting rules (Secretariat / Chair OPEN 21 Jan 2010 49 2 Talk with PDES, Inc. to see if proposal can be publicly reviewed by PLCS TC members Howard Mason OPEN 25 Feb 2010 50 1 Flag issues and requirements for implementers' forum. Send to Jim Colson All 25 Feb 2010 50 2 Estimate of costs and business model on how this will be self-sustaining Jim Colson and TOG 25 Feb 2010 50 3 Correct and regenerate Task DEX for review. Schedule WEBEX to review changes Tim Turner View event details: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/plcs/event.php?event_id=26521 PLEASE NOTE: If the above link does not work for you, your email application may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of your web browser. Referenced Items Date Name Type ---- ---- ---- 2010-02-25 Jotne_comments_DEX3_tjt_response_v001.docReference Document 2010-02-25 Jotne_comments_DEX3.doc Reference Document 2010-02-25 eurostep_issues_v001.doc Reference Document 2010-03-02 Minutes_Meeting_50_20100225_Rev1.docMinutes 2010-02-12 BCR1_issues_disposition.xls-2010-02-11.zipReference Document 2010-02-12 OASIS_R2_publication.zip Reference Document 2010-02-25 eurostep_issues_v001_tjt_response_V001.docReference Document 2010-02-15 Agenda_Meeting_50_20100225_Rev2.docDocument
BEGIN:VCALENDAR
METHOD:PUBLISH
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Kavi Corporation//NONSGML Kavi Groups//EN
X-WR-CALNAME:My Calendar
BEGIN:VEVENT
CATEGORIES:MEETING
STATUS:TENTATIVE
DTSTAMP:20100302T000000Z
DTSTART:20100225T150000Z
DTEND:20100225T163000Z
SEQUENCE:18
SUMMARY:PLCS Meeting 50 Teleconference
DESCRIPTION:Meeting 50 Teleconference 25 February 2010 - 1600 CET\, 1500 UK\,
1500 GMT\, 1000 US Eastern\, and 0700 US Pacific Time - for maximum 90
minutes. \n\nDial-in numbers & passcodes:\n\nPARTICIPANTS PIN NUMBER:
499596 #\n\n Country Number\nFrance 0805 110 496\nGermany 0800
101 4935\nItaly 800 985 528\nNorway 21033439\nSweden 0200 895
376\nUSA 1866 874 0924\nUK Local Call 0845 144 0023\nStd Int Dial
In +44 (0) 1452 542 437\n\nGroup: OASIS Product Life Cycle Support
(PLCS) TC\nCreator: Mr. Christopher Kreiler
URL:http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/plcs/event.php?event_id=26521
UID:http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/plcs/event.php?event_id=26521
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]