OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [dita] Minutes, 23 February 2010 DITA TC Meeting


"Gregarious vendors"? Fond of company? Sociable?  ?->

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Day [mailto:dond@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:55 AM
> To: DITA TC list 
> Subject: [dita] Minutes, 23 February 2010 DITA TC Meeting
> 
> 
> (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/archiv
> es/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/archiv
> es/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.
> 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]