Raw minutes 2008-05-22

[8:06] anish: Scibe: Danny

[8:06] anish: scribeNice: Danny

[8:06] anish: Scribe: Danny

[8:06] anish: ScribeNick: Danny

[8:08] Danny: Waiting for quorum.  Agenda pre-bashed.

[8:09] Danny: Topic AI#21: Sanjay will followup

[8:09] Danny: Topic:  Issue 16.

[8:10] Danny: Still waiting for proposal from Dieter

[8:10] Danny: Topic: JIRA Status

[8:10] Danny: 3 issues have been updated but not resolved.  Michael not on call

[8:10] Danny: Topic:  Status of spec.

[8:11] Danny: Dieter not on call.  Status of resolved issues not known.

[8:11] Danny: Action: Najeeb to take action to coordinate editors to reflect updated issues

[8:12] Danny: Topic:  Issue 15

[8:12] Danny: Discussion ran out of time last week

[8:13] Danny: But we're not quorate right now

[8:16] Mike Edwards: I am on the call now if that helps

[8:16] Danny: We are now quorate

[8:17] Danny: Topic:  Approval of minutes

[8:17] Danny: Updated minutes have been sent including the roll.  Sent out yesterday.

[8:17] Danny: Motion:  Approve minutes of May 15, 2008

[8:18] Danny: Approved unanimoulsy

[8:18] Danny: s/unanimoulsy/unanimously/

[8:18] Danny: Topic:  Issue 15

[8:26] Danny: motion made by Martin Chapman, 2nd from Mike Edwards

[8:26] Danny: Motion approved unanimously

[8:27] Danny: Martin: Motion resolves and closes issue 15

[8:28] Danny: Martin:  No editing needed, this is just language to use when using RFC 2119 language

[8:29] Danny: Motion: Martine moves to resolve issue 15 and instruct editors to insert the definitions from the previous motion

[8:29] Danny: s/Martine/Martin/

[8:30] Danny: 2nd by Mike Edwards

[8:30] Danny: motion approved unanimously

[8:30] Danny: Topic:  Issue 18

[8:31] Danny: Anish: This is something that the editors need to take on and bring back to TC.  No need for TC to debate this open-endedly

[8:32] Danny: Action:  Najeeb to coordinate editors to pick a "meaty" section, rewrite it in RFC 2119, bring back to TC for discussion

[8:33] Danny: s/"meaty"/"chunky"/

[8:33] Mike Edwards: said with feeling, Martin

[8:34] Danny: Topic:  Issue 16

[8:34] Danny: Anish to prod Dieter for a proposal

[8:34] Danny: Topic:  AOB

[8:35] Danny: Mike Edwards:  We should lay down algorithm for determining service or reference (recall discussion from last week)

[8:36] Danny: Mike Edwards:  Need to raise issue

[8:43] Danny: Mike Rowley:  Stating that a static analysis *can* perform the algorithm was assumed to be enough.  Hoping that Mike Edwards would point out inconsistency in that assumption.

[8:43] Danny: Mike Edwards:  It wasn't clear to me when I wrote the code that there weren't other choices.

[8:44] Danny: Mike Edwards:  Then let's put the algorithm (that I used) in the spec

[8:45] Danny: Mike Rowley:  One of the values of leaving it specified abstractly is that it is extensible to BPEL extensions.

[8:45] Danny: Mike Rowley:  e.g. BPEL 4 Subprocesses

[8:45] Danny: Mike Edwards:  Is it testable?

[8:46] Danny: Martin:  I think the algorithm is pretty clear

[8:48] anish i see u michaelR, want to let a little bit of back and forth

[8:49] Danny: Michael Rowley:  I think the issue of testability is an important one.  Would both statements be tested the same way?

[8:50] Danny: Michael Rowley:  Would the introduction of a specific algorithm change the way we test for it?

[8:51] Danny: Anish:  We'll put this on the agenda along with Issue 15

[8:51] Danny: Anish:  Any other business?

sca-bpel message