Minutes, 23 February 2010 DITA TC Meeting

[Don Day <dond@us.ibm.com>]

(See attached file: 23Feb2010Minutes.txt)

These are also pasted in the calendar notice for last week's DITA TC
meeting.

Regards,
--
Don Day
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Architect, Lightweight DITA Publishing Solutions
Email: dond@us.ibm.com
11501 Burnet Rd. MS9033E015, Austin TX 78758
Phone: +1 512-244-2868 (home office)

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
 Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
   --T.S. Eliot

Agenda for 23 February 2010 DITA TC Meeting/Call

>Minutes taken by Don Day

8:00-8:05 Roll call

Approve minutes from previous business meetings:
  * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00055.html (16 Feb,
2010 Day)
     o http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00072.html
(Eberlein corrections)
> Don moved, was seconded; carried by acclamation

Subcommittee/liaison reports
> skipped for today

Business:

  1. ITEM: DITA 1.2 specification
> Kristen led the discussion for this section:

     * Business (edited by Joseph for 16 February TC meeting):
       a. Check on status of Mime type topic
          o Status update from Don
          o When ready, need to submit for TC review
> Don has not had an update. Kristen suggested moving this item to Ongoing
for tracking; we'll go with the plan of record
> ACTION for DON: create a short topic with the proposed non-normative
appendix, to be written this week.

       b. Status of authors' work handling review #3 comments:
> Kristen asked person by person about status. Concern about losing
momentum--let's stay focused on these known work items. Would like to see
goal of March 1 for completion.
> Gershon has an upcoming business trip affecting his availability.
Estimates March 14 for his completions.
> Eliot has reviewed topics under specialization. Discussion about dates on
tables.
> Eliot had volunteered to do appendices.
> ACTION for ELIOT: reivew the wiki pages wrt appendices table
> ACTION for KRISTEN: update the appendices table to reflect Eliot as the
author.

       c. Overlapping/redundant content issue
          o
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archives/201002/msg00010.html
 (Eberlein, 2 February 2010)
          o Check where we are with authors updating their topics to mark
comments on redundant content
          o Are we ready for the next step (SWAT team meeting)?
          o Gershon has dealt with the collation topic (removed topic from
map)
> Would non-writer volunteers scan the reviewer comments for any obvious
redundant area by Monday? (fresh eyes on the problem)
> Rob Frankland volunteered
> Michael Priestley
> Sue-Laine
> Kristen--we'll assume the remaining areas have been sufficiently cleared.
> Jeff, Michael, Robert, Gershon for the SWAT team (Eliot would like to but
will be travelling)
> ACTION for KRISTEN: set up the meeting (before March 9)

       d. Revise schedule to accommodate the following items:
          o Extension on deadline for review #3 (four days)
          o An additional review for the SubjectScheme topic in the arch
spec (new content, never reviewed)
          o An additional review for the rewritten Conformance topic
          o An additional internal review cycle (review #4)
          o Need to address the overlapping/redundant content problem
          o Need to review prototypes of documentation for the various
packages
> Eliot will press for Monday reviews.
> Kristen will set up schedules based on the March 9 exit date for the SWAT
team plan of attack.

       e. Acknowledgments in DITA 1.2 spec -- what should they contain?
          o
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archives/201002/msg00033.html
 (Eberlein, 9 February 2010)
          o http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00067.html
(Grosso reset discussion)
          o http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00089.html
(Mary McRae opinion)
> Kristen quoted this OASIS goal in her amendment. "Individuals who have
actively participated"--how do we interpret this phrase?
> Don agreed with Jeff's suggestion that we put a stake in the ground.
Kristen proposed a single list of acknowledgments that should include:
* Authors of feature proposals
* Authors of specification topics
* Reviewers of specification topics
* Implementors of DTDs and Schemas
Bruce seconded. Discussion about contributions of folks no longer in the
TC.
> ACTION for DON: compile this list as Chair's responsibility.

       f. Conformance refinement: Use of "claims to be DITA aware"
          o http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00068.html
(Kimber opening note)
          o http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00086.html
(Ogden discussion reset)
> Jeff noted one open question: for the list of things supported/not
supported, was this dropped out of the conformance topic?
> Sue-Laine had requested its removal since the statement could be padded
by gregarious vendors.
> Jeff notes that customers are the final judges of truth of vendor
statements.
> Sue-Laine: a simple list might be too simple. Could we ask vendors to be
more detailed about what their support means?
> Eliot: what can you require vendors to state?
> MP: suggests that the Adoption TC could take on the customer/vendor
aspects of this discussion, to help contextualize claims.
> Dana: still considers this is worth opening for 1.3.
> Kristen: How can we help send our concerns over to the Adoption TC?
> Jeff: They could create a buyer's guide that includes a set of tests
against claims. For the DITA TC, they could create its own list of what is
and is not considered fundamental DITA capability.
> ACTION for GERSHON: as our liaison to the Adoption TC, he will  convey
these intents to them within the approval cycle for 1.2.
> Closed the open question of "what vendors should do" with that action
> Jeff notes we still need to get them to list conformance, and there is
the issue of evidence of support.
> Eliot also proposed #4--that you list the document types if that is what
you support (processing extensions)
> Jeff: yes, and allow vendors to state how they support key references,
for example.
> Eliot: concern about implicit claims
> Jeff: vendors should be able to make honest statements, allow customers
to judge the claims.
> Eliot: agreed, if we had such a crisp list of features.
> MP: suggests that we continue with previous example of saying nothing,
work in future on the essential list but not as input to current spec.
> Sue-Laine went back to Eliot's "#4" as better than nothing? Fine for
Jeff, but it only goes part of the way.
> Eliot is okay with such a statement, but notes that we can't state it too
firmly without a solid list.
> Jeff moves to accept Eliot's statement, Sue-Laine suggested refinements.
Since callers were dropping off, Don declared loss of quorum and
recommended this motion be developed on the list for the TC's review next
week.

> Meeting adjourned 3 minutes past the hour.

23Feb2010Minutes.txt