[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Raw transcript of the LSC call on 12/10/07
<<Minutes_LSC_Dec_10.txt>>
Room information was updated by: anish Call 610-661-0601 Toll Free dial: 877-633-8727 Mtg ID 722572 (SCALSC) Roll Call: SC: Sanjay, Jeff Assembly: Mike Martin Policy: Dave, Ashok Bindings: Anish, Michael Java: Michael, Henning C: Bryan BPEL: Sanjay, Anish Sanjay: Scribe: Sanjay Sanjay: Agenda: 1.Roll 2.Agenda Bashing 3.Approval of Dec 3rd, 2007 meeting Minutes http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/opencsa-liaison/200712/msg00003.html 4.Review Action Items http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/opencsa-liaison/members/action_items.php 5.New Issues a>Use of lower-case RFC 2119 terms Is this a new issue? Emails: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/opencsa-liaison/200712/msg00018.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/opencsa-liaison/200712/msg00017.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/opencsa-liaison/200712/msg00016.html 6.Issue Discussion a>LIAISON-1: Define Conformance Targets http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/LIAISON-1 Email Thread: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/opencsa-liaison/200711/msg00004.html 7.AOB Sanjay: Next Topic: Agenda Bashing Sanjay: Jeff has invited Jamie Sanjay: and would like to add an agenda item Sanjay: Next Topic: Approval of 12/3/2007 meeting minutes Sanjay: No objections. Minutes approved Martin: just joined Sanjay: Next Topic: Review of open AI Sanjay: No open AI Sanjay: Next Topic: New Issues Sanjay: a>Use of lower-case RFC 2119 terms Is this a new issue? Sanjay: Jeff: desires consistency in using RFC 2119 terms across TCs Sanjay: Bryan: Do we want to scrub all specs for eliminating lower case RFC 2119 terms Sanjay: MikeR: It may be hard to eliminate 'may' Sanjay: Jeff: Not that hard Sanjay: MikeR: For specs addressing programming models, the spec text is aimed at a developer and it is hard to avoid 'may' there Bryan Aupperle: Is anyone else hearing the severe echo? Sanjay: Jeff: Can we use 'can' instead of 'may' Sanjay: Bryan: 'can' is different than 'may' Sanjay: Jeff: There may be other options Sanjay: Discussion about difficulty in avoid RFC terms for specs targeted at developers Sanjay: s/avoid/avoiding Sanjay: Martin: I don't see the difficulty in complying with RFC terms Sanjay: MikeR: What about BPEL spec? Sanjay: Martin: They didn't want to spend time on RFC 2119 compliance Sanjay: Anish, did you want to be in the queue? The discussion currently is free form anish that's ok, i'll wait Sanjay: Jeff moves to accept a new issue: 'Whether or not to require the use of RFC 2119 lower case terms to convey the semantics as specified by RFC 2119' Sanjay: Seconded by MikeR Sanjay: Martin objects Sanjay: Vote held and carried Sanjay: Issue is accepted Sanjay: Next Topic: Sanjay: Jeff: We should be deciding what issues need uniformity across all TCs, and let the TCs arrive at a solution. Sanjay: Jeff: Sanjay had a different opinion that we are representing different TCs and we (LSC) could do some design work Sanjay: ... would like Jamie's opinion since we are dealing with this matter for the first time Sanjay: Jamie: There are two other member sections but we did not have LSC like this before Sanjay: ... One of the other MS with similar problem had established a specific TC (framework TC) to resolve such issues Sanjay: ... Another MS ensured that common issues are assigned to one of the issues for resolution Sanjay: s/one of the issues/one of the TCs Sanjay: ... Problem with conflict resolution by the LSC is not related to TC process but IPR Sanjay: ... If multiple TCs resolve the same issue in a conflicting manner, LSC could make a recommendation of choosing a specific solution designed by one of the TCs Sanjay: MikeR: If a LSC member invents a new solution, can that LSC member submit the solution to a TC to avoid the IP issue related to contribution Sanjay: Jamie: that's possible Sanjay: Discussion about pros-and-cons of this approach Sanjay: Jamie: Contribution by a LSC member in a TC has IP implication for that member's company Sanjay: ... Quotes an example from BPEL TC Sanjay: ... where one of the original developer companies was not part of the BPEL TC Sanjay: Jeff: Following Jamie's suggestion, the LSC should not be doing design work Sanjay: ... but could make recommendations for example, use or do no use RFC 2119 lower case terms Sanjay: ... where artifacts are to be generated, we should contact one of the TC's to develop a solution Sanjay: Sanjay: It seems wasteful to disallow the LSC to not to design work Sanjay: s/to not to/to do Sanjay: Jamie: The OASIS policies and rules are designed around the assumption that all the technical work is done by the TCs Sanjay: Anish: Because there is lot of overlap between the TCs, it would be efficient to do discussion here. If we want to disallow generating solution here, we have to find a workable solution. Sanjay: ... One of the TCs could invent the solution to be adopted by all the TCs Sanjay: Second problem is - the Assembly TC which may be the right TC to resolve common issues is already very busy Sanjay: ... perhaps we should form a subcommittee of the Assembly TC (like LSC) and do the work there Sanjay: Discussion about which TC is the right place to resolve common issues anish: i think a subcommittee in assembly TC is workable Sanjay: Is anybody on the call not a member of LSC? anish: i really really really don't want to discuss the same thing several times, unless the individual TCs disagree with the proposed solution Sanjay: none responded. all present on the call are assembly TC members anish time check, policy call is next Sanjay: Next Topic: Next call Sanjay: Caneled next week's call (on 12/17). Sanjay: Next call will be in the next year. Mike Edwards: ;-) Sanjay: Meeting adjourned at 9:02 AM Pacific Time Mike Edwards: thanks Sanjay
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]