[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: SCA assembly raw chat log 26 march 2012
Mike Edwards (UK): 1. Intro Roll call Scribe confirmation Agenda bashing 2. Approval of minutes of previous SCA-Assembly TC meeting https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201302/msg00002.html 3. Action Items None 4. Discussion of Future of the SCA Assembly TC Consideration following the failed vote to close the TC 5. Fabric3 SCA Conformance claim https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201303/msg00000.html discussion https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201303/msg00009.html https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201303/msg00010.html https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201303/msg00011.html https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201303/msg00012.html 6. Date of Next Meeting 7. AOB MartinC : I can do roll Mike Edwards (UK): IScribe: Mike Edwards Mike Edwards (UK): Meeting 6/10 = quorate Mike Edwards (UK): Agenda Bashing Mike Edwards (UK): No changes Mike Edwards (UK): Item 2 Approval of Minutes Mike Edwards (UK): https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201302/msg00002.html Mike Edwards (UK): Martin: We need to correct the date to 2013 anish just joined Mike Edwards (UK): Minutes are accepted with change of date to 2013. Mike Edwards (UK): Item 4 Discussion of Future of the SCA Assembly TC Mike Edwards (UK): Bryan: The flurry of recent activity should be allowed to play out Mike Edwards (UK): - the Java TC may have the longest running activity to complete Mike Edwards (UK): Anish: Yes, need to see how the submissions play out Mike Edwards (UK): - not motivated to do a lot of work Mike Edwards (UK): Jeff: I agree with Anish Mike Edwards (UK): Jim: I am motivated to complete stuff anish: gartner report http://www.gartner.com/id=1660515 anish: ... and that was in 2011 Jim M: Yes and Gartner has an excellent track record of predicting new technologies. Seriously, we have received excellent feedback from people using SCA Mike Edwards (UK): Eric: I have a question - where were the exit criteria anish: i'm not suggesting that gartner is always right. And i was hoping to prove them wrong. That was in 2011. We have gotten a lot of excellent feedback too. But I was hoping to see a very widely implemented standard Jim M: me too Mike Edwards (UK): & there is nothing to say that we have to abide by the decision of the other TCs in order for the Assembly TC to make its decision on the conformance of some runtime? Jim M: there are four open source implementations already Mike Edwards (UK): Bryan: For Policy & Bindings, I think we are obliged to accept the judgement of the relevant TCs Mike Edwards (UK): for the implementation language, things are more nuanced Mike Edwards (UK): Martin: From an Assembly TC perspective, providing there are 2 conforming impls, including the flexiblity about the implementation language, then that is fine. There is a separate question about the grouping of specifications and the need to advance them together, when they are intertwined Mike Edwards (UK): Jim: The flexibility is there and there is an argument that Assembly can progress anish: i know of three, which is the 4th one? Mike Edwards (UK): Jeff: It does make sense to view the specs as a set Mike Edwards (UK): Eric: I don't see where it says who judges the conformance to a particular implementation language spec Mike Edwards (UK): Mike: I dont think that it does say, but for the ones belonging to one of the other TCs it seems more logical to let them make the judgement Mike Edwards (UK): Danny: We're in a bind - my read of the intention of the acceptance language is 2 things 1) get the specs out the door = 2 conformant impls 2) can't get the language specs "out the door" unless there are 2 impls for each spec Mike Edwards (UK): - once out the door, any runtime can claim conformance in the way stated for some random language Mike Edwards (UK): Danny; we don't need to play strict attention to the language expressed Mike Edwards (UK): Danny: We should only keep the Assembly TC going for the purpose of getting a 2nd implementation - and not for any other purpose Mike Edwards (UK): Eric: I'm agreeing with Danny MartinC : my poor eventing work MartinC : down the tubes Mike Edwards (UK): Anish: I agree with only continuing for purposes of getting to Committee Spec status anish: i know, we did spend a lot of time/effort on it. Oh well. Sigh. Mike Edwards (UK): Danny: We could raise the bar for a new issue, for example. Mike Edwards (UK): Danny moves that the committee announce its attention to remain open for a time for the purpose of accepting new conformant implementations and not for changing the specification materially. Mike Edwards (UK): Mike Kaiser seconds Mike Edwards (UK): Martin: What happens if there is a requirement for maintenance - if a problem is reported? Mike Edwards (UK): - we should be interested in maintenance. Mike Edwards (UK): Danny: not sure I intend to cover maintenance - we are only concerned with getting to Committee Specification state Mike Edwards (UK): once we get there, this motion can expire Mike Edwards (UK): Anish: the motion will expire when someone actually tries to do something Mike Edwards (UK): - I'm not sure that the motion is very meaningful in that the TC is already not doing stuff Mike Edwards (UK): Jeff: If I vote no, what does that mean Mike Edwards (UK): - I think this motion is irrelevant Mike Edwards (UK): Danny: It was a means of putting a stake in the ground Mike Edwards (UK): Danny withdraws the motion Mike Edwards (UK): Item 5. Fabric3 SCA Conformance claim https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201303/msg00000.html discussion https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201303/msg00009.html https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201303/msg00010.html https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201303/msg00011.html https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201303/msg00012.html MartinC : https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/201108/msg00047.html Mike Edwards (UK): Bryan: Assembly TC already accepted that Fabric3 conforms to the Assembly Model spec, as in the minutes above Jim M: https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/?ui=2&ik=3ac05dc3d2&view=att&th=131f7e7ac7b92b27&attid=0.0&disp=inline&safe=1&zw&sadnir=1&saduie=AG9B_P-Vn_Fp8eee_BsiPxQrdbpH&sadet=1364312844821&sads=gTM5A-bWXruH64KOLlLp-bQFIgo Mike Edwards (UK): Mike: So it seems that Assmeby TC should wait for the other TCs to pass judgement on the claims for conformance against their specs. Mike Edwards (UK): ...which brings us to the date of the next meeting Mike Edwards (UK): May 7th Mike Edwards (UK): agreed Mike Edwards (UK): Item 7 AOB MartinC : roll: IBM Bryan Aupperle Voting Member IBM David Booz Member Oracle Martin Chapman Chair IBM Mike Edwards Chair TIBCO Software Inc. Eric Johnson Member IBM Mike Kaiser Voting Member Oracle Anish Karmarkar Voting Member Individual Jim Marino Member Oracle Jeff Mischkinsky Voting Member SAP AG Sanjay Patil Member Oracle Gilbert Pilz Voting Member TIBCO Software Inc. Danny van der Rijn Voting Member
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]