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: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 29 March 2016 uploaded

Submitter's message
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 25 October 2016
Recorded by Tom Magliery
link to agenda for this meeting:

Meeting opened at 8am Pacific time.

Roll call
Regrets: Dawn Stevens, Dick Hamilton, Tom Magliery, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Don Day, Nancy Harrison, Stan Doherty
(Dawn, Don, and Tom were present after all)

Agenda items taken slightly out of order to prioritize the first item below and allow travelling people (Lavacon conference) to drop off the call after the vote.

1. Vote to approve errata 01:
I move that the TC approve DITA 1.3 Errata 01 contained in https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=59210&wg_abbrev=dita as an Approved Errata and make it available with the updated version of the DITA 1.3 OASIS Standard.

Motion made as above by Kris
Second by Don
Roll call vote:
Robert yes
Deb yes
Karsten yes
Don yes
Kris yes
Maria yes
Scott yes
Eliot yes
Tom yes
Chris yes
Dawn yes
Joe yes
Bob yes
Eric yes

Associated action items:
ACTION: Tom to upload meeting minutes quickly as a record of this vote
ACTION: Kris to request that the errata document be published by OASIS

2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00085.html (Nancy Harrison, 20 October 2016)
Kris: move
Bob: second
Objections? (none)
Minutes are approved

3. Announcements:
(none this week)

4. Action items
Most old ones are still "in progress"
Update by Tom regarding this item:
4 October 2016: Tom: Work on aggregated minutes for 2005-2011 (IN PROGRESS)
Tom: Have written some script to automatically create an aggregate DITA topic from a set of individual minutes files. From the DITA topic can publish HTML and PDF, and select-all-copy-paste from HTML also produces a good TXT version. Now working on extracting individual minutes from email archives. Have completed 2011 and 2010 so far.

Updates on last week's action items are as noted in the agenda:
18 October 2016:
Robert: Update grammar files to correct public identifiers in comments (COMPLETED)
Eliot: Add public identifiers for machinery task body constraint and map classification domain to catalog files (DONE by Robert)
Eliot: Restore DITA 1.x identifiers to catalog files (Moved to errata 02)

5. Continued item: Subcommittee governance
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00052.html (Thomas, 11 October 2016)
Bob: No significant update to this document since then
Kris: Now time to move ahead and approve/disapprove?
Bob: Yes
Kris: Either we need to approve this document, or request additional changes. Everyone take a moment to look now; this is your opportunity to request changes.
Most recent change is adding last section about what TC does for subcommittees - highlighted in red in email
Kris: Motion to approve
Eliot: Second
Any objections? (none)
Kris: Document is approved; we will keep as "living" document. (We can revisit/update if need be.)

6. Continuing item: Git/GitHub repos for TC work
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00038.html (Eberlein, 10 October 2016)
Kris: Now have ability to use Github repository with OASIS, either in addition or in replace of SVN. What do we want to do?
Previously had loose consensus for using SVN for "informal" things, and Github for more importnat things like spec source
Eliot: Want to move to Git as quickly as possible, and I think that's good division
Robert: agree
Mark: we had email exchange with OASIS and looks like we can never go to Github for *everyting*; for some things it's required that users not be allowed to modify something.
Kris: OASIS offers two types of Github repos -- 1) for TC work conducted under IPR (intellectual property rights) rules (what we're considering) and 2) different category of "open" Github repo which is what we currently have for LWDITA and Eliot's RNG to DTD/XSD tool. I don't fully understand the licensing rules (differences) between them, but we would be talking about a repo under the current IPR rules for the TC, not the "open" version.
Kris: any volunteers for someone to discuss with OASIS to help clarify the different IPR types for these two repos?
Eliot: (volunteered)
Kris: I will help as needed.
Eliot: My understanding is that things are like the repos that we have now
Kris: I think we had to specify the license when we opened the repo
Eliot: but it's not governed by the same OASIS requirements
Kris: true. Not sure how much anyone but us will be aware of that. E.g. with the LWDITA repo, are they using the repo "correctly" i.e. should it be a TC repo or an open one?
Eliot: probably depends on what they're producing -- is it a real "specification" or not
Kris: I would agree
Kris: Mark, we should make a note of this to circle back around for LWDITA
Eliot: to be clear, both repos are public, it's a question of who can contribute
Mark: Found email from Robin Cover telling us about the kinds of repos. The private Github repos were not accessible/visible publicly. You can make one public without getting feedback on it ... something like that, which was a sticking point.
Kris: one thing critical for any of our work is that it has to be publicly visible to anybody. It's part of our work for open standards. Email lists, Kavi repo, version control, all needs to be viewable so that everything is transparent and accessible as possible.
Kris: any other thoughts/comments about Github
Kris: Let's do a quick roundtable of how comfortable everyone feels with Github.

Kris: have used Git, not adept, working on it
Robert: use regularly, comfortable with basics
Deb: no experience with Git, but none with SVN either, so it wouldn't matter
Karsten: haven't used Git, would make myself familiar
Maria: not familiar with Github, some others use it at Healthwise
Eliot: same level as Robert, comfortable with all basics
Tom: have never used it, but am confident could learn
Chris: same as Eliot
Dawn: have used, am comfortable
Joe: not used, but confident could learn
Bob: have used quite a bit, comfortable with basics
Eric: have used it a bit, not regularly, little rusty, should be able to pick things up

Kris: I do think it requires a different sort of mindset than SVN
Kris: will the oldies help the newbies learn?
Bob: there is abundant info online
Eliot: willing to help learn the basic differences b/w SVN and Git
Robert: only a few options that you really need to use
Eric: the tool from sourcetree is helpful for using the basics
Kris: agree about sourcetree
Kris: if we move from SVN to Github, SVN is a low-level point of entry. Github seems higher. My experience was with DITA OT project, perhaps that project was the problem.
Robert: I don't think so, it wasn't anything different from the way the TC would use it.
Chris: The work process with the OT is a little more complicated (incl. approval and other workers) than the way we would be using it
Eric: yes
Eliot: our process with Github would be very similar to the way we work with SVN; the concepts should transfer almost completely and directly
Kris: clear that we do need to move to using Github; we've outgrown SVN as evidenced by our difficulties with DITA 1.3 errata and starting work on DITA 2.0
Kris: Unless any objections, I will request that we have a new repository for use for our spec work; will keep other work in SVN for the time being
ACTION: Kris to request new Github repository

7. Continuing item: Listening sessions
Kris: starting one for RTP area, North Carolina

8. Continuing item: Work on committee notes
Kris: "DITA the standard versus DITA Open Toolkit"; Robert has uploaded the source to SVN
Robert: People in the sub-interest group should look at the source and let me know.
Kris: who's in that group?
Robert: Kris, Tom, Keith are on the list as contributors
Robert: document is not quite ready for full publication/review as at least one main section is missing
ACTION: Kris to add her section about TC work (DITA vs. DITA OT committee note)
ACTION: Robert to schedule a call with small group (DITA vs. DITA OT committee note)

9. Volunteer opportunities:
Kris: this is a new section we are keeping on the agenda.
Kris: Regarding this opportunity:
--Write a FAQ for folks new to the DITA TC
This comes out of call with Tulika Garg, product owner at Adobe, owns new XML add-on to Adobe Experience Manager that lets it be used as kind of a DITA CMS. She had a lot of useful questions that I hadn't thought about. E.g. how does someone new know what's going to happen on a call? How do I get an item submitted to the agenda? Would be useful for us to have a FAQ like that written up for people. Any volunteers?
Deb: I will give that a stab
ACTION: Deb to work on FAQ for people new to DITA TC. (Kris will supply with info from recent discussion.)

Meeting adjourned at 8:41am Pacific Time.

Summary of new action items:
ACTION: Tom to upload meeting minutes quickly as a record of this vote
ACTION: Kris to request that the errata document be published by OASIS
ACTION: Kris to request new Github repository
ACTION: Kris to add her section about TC work (DITA vs. DITA OT committee note)
ACTION: Robert to schedule a call with small group (DITA vs. DITA OT committee note)
ACTION: Deb to work on FAQ for people new to DITA TC. (Kris will supply with info from recent discussion.)

-- Mr. Tom Magliery
Document Name: DITA TC Meeting Minutes 29 March 2016

No description provided.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

Submitter: Mr. Tom Magliery
Group: OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC
Folder: Meeting Notes
Date submitted: 2016-10-25 09:58:34

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