[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Preliminary minutes, 01 Dec. 2005
Please see attached file. Please send comments or corrections by Monday, Dec. 5. Regards, Paul Paul Knight Strategic Standards Advisor Nortel paul.knight@nortel.com +1.978.288.6414Title: WS-TX Bi-Weekly Minutes
|
WS-TX Bi-Weekly Date: Thursday, 01 December 2005 Time: 11:30am - 01:00pm ET Event Description: US (toll free) 866-505-4412 UK (toll free) 0800 279 9193 Int'l (toll) +44-20-7019-0808 Passcode: 268450 Chat room: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/wstx Agenda: 1. Roll Call Ian conducted the role call of
members and voting members. The results
are not noted in these minutes, but will be posted on the TC site. sorted by surname:
2. Confirm Paul as minute taker Paul is taking minutes. 3. Approve minutes of Nov F2F. approved 4. Call for AOB no other items raised
5. Action Review http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/members/action_items.php (Alastair Green) Clarify the changes
to the state tables which will be needed to address Choreology's
proposed changes -
Alastair: I have uploaded a document to describe the changes, but have not
submitted a formal issue. action closed (Colleen Evans) Distribute
descriptions of the formats, etc., for the issue tracking process - closed (Eric Newcomer) Work with
specification editors to produce initial OASIS-formatted, line-numbered
versions of documents - closed (Max Feingold) Editor to create
initial version of specification in OASIS format with line numbers, or send to
mailing list a committed date for making it available - Ian: any issues with conversion? Max - completed as is. closed (Thomas Freund) Editor
to create initial version of specification in OASIS format with line numbers,
or send to mailing list a committed date for making it available. - completed,
closed (Mark Little) Editor
to create initial version of specification in OASIS format with line numbers,
or send to mailing list a committed date for making it available. - completed,
closed Ian: Please send mail to the entire
mailing list if you have issues. Use the
template from Colleen. These documents now have the status
of working drafts. Ian: With respect to consistency, we
have tried to use the same template, but the AT spec has a different numbering
scheme. Mark Little: Will adjust this. Colleen: Some of the ordering of
sections is different between the documents; I will send a description of the
differences. Ian:
Chairs shouldn't do the changes, the editors should do that. chris ferris I think that we should be following the same tack that WS-RX TC is and have PDF versions with line numbers that are "normative" for purposes of making comments/suggested edits and raising/resolving issues Alastair: I support the PDF
suggestion, to avoid document changes affecting the line numbering Chris: With PDF, the format is
consistent for all viewers. With
MS-Word, different versions may render the document differently. <discussion
of document formats> Paul Cotton: Section 2.18 of the TC
Process document at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process_2005_08_09.pdf
describes how this is to be handled - editable, html, pdf formats
, etc. I support what Chris is
suggesting. Colleen: How does this affect the
line number issue? Chris: Comments should be against
the PDF version, to ensure line numbers are seen consistently. The issue is that in editable format like
MS-Word, line numbers can vary with different formats, such as A4 paper sizing. Colleen: Should every editor's draft
be made available in PDF? Chris: I think so. Ian: The editors should do this Colleen: Should be part of the
process. Alastair: A checkpoint should
produce both an editable and PDF version. It was noted that several TCs do
this. Ian: We need to be clear what we
mean by an "editors draft". We
should refer to these as "working drafts," and whenever an editable working
draft document is uploaded to KAVI, there should also
be a PDF version. Ian: Any objection? None. Ian: I am now asking the editors to
upload PDF versions of each document. 6. Review of Issue process - Colleen http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/email/archives/200511/msg00052.html Colleen walked through her document
describing the issue process. The issue status codes are the ones
adopted by the WS-RX TC. The status codes are: review,
dropped, active, deferred, pending, done, resolved, closed Colleen described the Issue
submittal template. Proposed resolutions
should refer to the line numbers in PDF. Ian: any objections to accepting
this process for handling issues? No objections. The process is adopted. chris ferris colleen, you are missing the Resolution: section and IMO the Resolution should include a link to the minutes in which the issue was resolved (closed, dropped, etc.) Colleen: That information should be
captured by the process. Paul Cotton: How to avoid getting
lot of messages responding to "new issue" messages with similar subjects? Colleen: Responders should wait
until an issue number is assigned, if possible. Paul: In WS-RX, the issues get
responses very quickly, especially with TC members around the globe. Maybe a token server could be used to issue
numbers. Peter: In BPEL, the issues are sent
to the chair, then assigned a number, then sent to general mailing list. Peter: For WS-TX what we propose is
that one of us (Peter or Colleen) will sent out a message responding to the new
issue, assigning it a number. Colleen: I will include a statement
in the issue template asking for deferral of discussion until the number is
assigned. This should help, if it is
included at the top of each message submitting a new issue. Alastair: How about trying to
sequentially address the three specs?
Will we enforce some method of prioritizing the email discussions? Ian: We need a single issue list for
all of the specs. Issues can be raised
against any spec at any time. For
resolving the issues, we should drain the Coordination queue first, then AT,
then BA. Alastair: Does the order of discussion we agreed to at
the F2F meeting (Coordination, AT, BA) apply to
discussions on the list also? Ian: No, only on the teleconferences
will the ordering be applied, base on the agenda for each meeting. We will just let nature take its course on
the mailing list. I expect the email
discourses will tend to follow the focus of the teleconferences. Eric: The email exchanges can often resolve
issues outside the teleconferences Tom Rutt:
This is contribution driven, like other OASIS TCs. If there is a hot topic or agreement reached on
email, it should be reflected in the agendas. Bob Freund: Chairs can structure
debate by careful selection of issues for the agenda Ian: We intend to do that. 7.
Potential new issues to consider - Colleen http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200511/msg00031.html (this is an
error in the agenda; item skipped) 8. Issue resolution - Chair not needed, no issues 9.
AOB Colleen: need to ensure that the
ballot we discussed at the F2F is initiated. This is the ballot on clarifications to the
charter. It appears Jamie did not
initiate the ballot. Paul C: Chairs need to ensure this
happens. Eric: I will do this. 10. Straggler Roll Call taken and noted by Ian. 11. Close Meeting closed Minutes: In-line above. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]