Re: [tm-pubsubj] Jan 29 agenda

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

Steve P.

> | 1. Membership status
>
> I agree that this should be done by email.

This is a very quick process at the beginning of the meeting, that should not take more
than one or two minutes.
And we need to clarify the membership status before voting anything else. We'll have a
very good quorum at this meeting, that's why I thought it was a good idea to take a very
quick moment to set that.

> | 2. Requirements Part 1
>
> It seems that everyone finds this acceptable as it now is, except for the
> problem of terminology. I suggest we concentrate on reaching agreement on
> terminology in the concall and then do a final approval round of the
> Requirements. This agenda item can therefore be dropped.

OK. Let's do that.

> | 3. Terminology
>
> This should be the main discussion issue.

The ground is well prepared. I figure it should not be that long.

> | 4. Revision of Charter
>
> Again, dependent on terminology. Should not be part of the concall.

Agreed again, all the more so because I did not get the bandwidth for a proper revision.
Anyway I think it's to be done before Seattle. That could be done through e-mail.

> | 5. Content of deliverable
>
> I guess we need to discuss this briefly.

The shortest possible, but not shorter.

> | 6. Published subjects documentation format(s):
>
> Important to get various people's opinions on the table and briefly
> discussed. However, this should really be done on the basis of positions
> that have been established up front in writing. Lars Marius and I will post
> something on this today.

Good move. It would be fine to have concurrent/complementary proposals.
I'm not sure we'll get them by tomorrow anyway ...

Bernard