[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [opencsa-ms] Proposed - OpenCSA Steering Committee (StC)Proposed Agenda - 08 oct 2010,
Regrets - I have an unavoidable conflict and can't attend today's SC meeting. Best wishes, Sanjay -----Original Message----- From: Mark Little [mailto:mlittle@redhat.com] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 11:43 PM To: Jeff Mischkinsky Cc: David Burke; Patil, Sanjay; opencsa-ms@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [opencsa-ms] Proposed - OpenCSA Steering Committee (StC) Proposed Agenda - 08 oct 2010, Apologies in advance, but I'll be on a plane this Friday. Mark. On 8 Oct 2010, at 01:00, Jeff Mischkinsky wrote: > hi, > We can have a call. I tried last month -- but my mail to the sc list bounced - and i didn't notice until it was too late. > > I'm not sure we have much of an agenda. > > But send in any agenda items. > > otherwise it will be a pro forma agenda -- i'm on a plane about to button up -- i'll try and send something out in a few hours. > > -jeff > > On Oct 07, 2010, at 2:13 PM, David Burke wrote: > >> Fair enough >> >> It seems like there could be other reasons to have an SC call though >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Oct 7, 2010, at 12:48, "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com> wrote: >> >>> I think it makes sense for the SC to get an update on the status of the OpenCSA TCs. However I am not prepared to collect and compile a status report by tomorrow. I can try to do that in the coming two weeks and send an email to the SC. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Sanjay >>> >>> >>> >>> From: David Burke [mailto:dburke@tibco.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 12:18 PM >>> To: opencsa-ms@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: Re: [opencsa-ms] Proposed - OpenCSA Steering Committee (StC) Proposed Agenda - 10 July 2009, >>> >>> >>> >>> Any interest in an SC meeting tomorrow? >>> >>> >>> >>> It would be great to get an LSC update on the current status of all TCs. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, David >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 9, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Mike Kaiser wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> PROPOSED AGENDA - OpenCSA Steering Committee (StC) PROPOSED AGENDA - 10 July 2009 9:00 AM PST >>> >>> Call-In Information: >>> >>> Participant passcode: 784631 >>> >>> North America Toll free 1-888-240-4148 >>> Toll/International +1-719-234-0214 >>> London, UK, Local +44 (0) 20 7663 2217 >>> UK toll free 0 800 051 6872 >>> >>> *6 mute/un-mute, *0 operator, *1 help >>> >>> >>> Our thanks to David Burke and TIBCO for hosting the teleconference number. >>> >>> >>> 0. Agenda bashing and Roll >>> >>> 1. Minutes Approval >>> >>> - 05 June 2009: >>> >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/opencsa-ms/download.php/32808/Open_CSA_SC_20090605_Draft.txt >>> >>> >>> 2. Open Action Item Review and Discussion >>> >>> AI20081212-001 - Coordinate an effort with Assembly TC to produce an >>> SCA primer as the specs approach standardization (in review). >>> >>> STATUS: On Hold until we get closer to standardization. >>> Keep on hold. >>> >>> AI20090313-001 Jeff to send the following recommendation to >>> the TC's. >>> >>> Recommendation: >>> Steering Committee Recommends inclusion of the >>> completed test suite with the main package for >>> the initial CS vote. >>> >>> STATUS: Still open. Jeff will do this. >>> Leave as open. >>> >>> AI20090605-001 Mike to agenda the following for the July 10th >>> Steering Committee meeting: >>> a) further discussion around the 2 compliance validation >>> prior to CS, and >>> b) discussion regarding the SCA implementation language >>> requirement. >>> >>> STATUS: Done, see agenda item 4 and 6 below. >>> >>> AI20090605-002 David to set up new moderator call for future >>> steering committee meetings. >>> >>> STATUS: Targeting completion for August StC meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. Overall TC Milestones Status as discussed by LSC: >>> >>> The following represents the current state of each TC relative >>> to Public Reviews >>> >>> * = PR 04/24 - 06/23 >>> & = PR 06/08- 08/07 >>> ? = PR submission imminent. >>> - = Schedule not available at this time. (lower priority) >>> >>> >>> >>> SCA-Assembly TC Specifications (V1.1) >>> * SCA Assembly Model Specification >>> >>> SCA-Policy TC Specifications (V1.1) >>> * SCA Policy Framework >>> >>> SCA-BPEL TC Specifications (V1.1) >>> * SCA WS-BPEL Client and Implementation Specification >>> >>> SCA-C/C++ TC Specifications (V1.1) >>> * SCA Client and Implementation Model Specification for C >>> * SCA Client and Implementation Model Specification for C++ >>> >>> SCA-J TC Specifications (V1.1) >>> & SCA Java Common Annotations and APIs Specification >>> & SCA Java Component Implementation Specification >>> - SCA EJB Session Bean Binding Specification >>> - SCA Spring Component Implementation Specification >>> - SCA JEE Integration Specification >>> >>> SCA-Bindings TC Specifications (V1.1) >>> ? SCA Web Services Binding Specification >>> ? SCA JMS Binding Specification >>> ? SCA JCA Binding Specification >>> - SCA HTTP Binding Specification >>> >>> SDO TC Specifications (V3.0) >>> - Service Data Objects Specification >>> - Service Data Objects for Java >>> >>> >>> Where are we on the Test Suite progress for each? >>> (i.e. Test Cases, Test Assertions) For each >>> - When is TC final review scheduled? >>> - When is vote for PR scheduled? >>> - When is Submission to TC Admin for PR scheduled? >>> - When is PR targeted? >>> >>> For Assembly, Policy, BPEL, C/C++ specs; >>> - How did the PR's go? >>> - What is plan for PR comments? >>> - Is another PR required? >>> >>> Schedule Detail for Binding Specs; >>> Public review draft vote June 25th successful. However issue 76 >>> was not rolled in correctly requiring re-spin. >>> Now attempting to work with Mary for CD03 submission package >>> for PR. Complications noted. >>> Test assertions complete one month beyond PRD - July 30th >>> Test cases one month after that - August 27th >>> >>> >>> >>> 4. Compliant implementation plans >>> We know that we need something about mid year. There are >>> several companies working this but implementation timing is >>> unknown. Open Source (Apache Tuscany, looks to be one >>> source for at least some of the TC's. Fabric3 may be another). >>> Each TC will have to make it's own decision on what compliant >>> implementations they are going to use based on what's available >>> in the timeframe of standardization and what their test plan >>> looks like. >>> >>> The SC must eventually resolve the question of "how it will >>> make approval decisions" and communicate this to the TC's. >>> It is expected that the Testing Plans for each TC will >>> incorporate implementation/testing aspects which encompass >>> the broader "SCA" picture. >>> >>> ******> We must address the following core questions: >>> Are we all in agreement that the exit criteria in each >>> charter applies to Member Submission for vote and not >>> for Committee Specification approval? >>> >>> At this stage, what (if any) compliant applications >>> are the likely candidates which the SC will likely >>> generally accept? >>> >>> FROM JUNE 05, 2009 MEETING: >>> There is some debate as to whether the exit criteria requiring >>> spec validation by two implementations is necessary prior to >>> Committee Specification or not. >>> >>> (A) >>> One camp argues that CS is defined by OASIS process as a final >>> deliverable and therefore is subject to the exit criteria. The >>> CS is a standard of sorts, it is just not one which has been >>> approved by the entire OASIS Membership. Many (maybe 70%) of >>> the OASIS specs are in this state without intent to gain >>> OASIS Membership standardization status. Because of this >>> CS status should not be granted until there is validation of >>> at least 2 implementations. we shouldn't have final deliverables >>> which haven't been fully debugged using the 2 implementation >>> compliance rule. >>> >>> (B) >>> The other camp argues that public perception is that CS's are >>> not OASIS standards. Perception is that they do represent a >>> level of specification which is stable enough that Vendors >>> and customers can implement with some assurances that the OASIS >>> Member Standard (if there is one) is likely to have little if >>> any substantive change. This level of specification is used >>> by some as the tipping point to make resource/dollar/timing >>> decisions around formal implementations. Therefore, CS status >>> should be granted to encourage implementations to formally >>> validate against. >>> >>> >>> Due to time constraints, further discussion was deferred >>> for continuation at today's meeting (July 10th). >>> >>> CONTINUE DISCUSSION >>> >>> >>> 5. New Teleconference Passcode Process >>> Because of potential fraudulent use of the previous >>> use of the Steering Committee teleconference number provided >>> by TIBCO (thanks!!). Future calls will now be set up as requiring >>> a moderator. The moderator code will be distributed to Steering >>> Committee members only. In general, Mike and/or Jeff will >>> automatically dial in using the moderator number. If you, >>> as a Steering Committee member, dial in and find no moderator, >>> you should hang up and use the moderator code. That way there >>> should be no instance where multiple members are waiting on >>> a non-active line because the moderator hasn't joined yet. >>> >>> This process is expected to begin at the next Steering >>> Committee meeting (Aug 14th)...so keep an eye out for call-in >>> # changes. >>> >>> Any questions? >>> >>> >>> >>> 6. Response to Microsoft and Siemens SCA-Assembly Public Review comments. >>> Microsoft and Siemens (and other internal SCA members) have >>> raised the question around which of the two following paths >>> should be taken for claiming SCA Compliance (i.e. A or B). >>> >>> A) SCA Compliant extensions must be compliant with all of the >>> following: >>> a) SCA Assembly, >>> b) SCA Policy, >>> c) SCA Binding, and >>> d) at least one of the SCA Implementation Types >>> (currently Java, BPEL, C or C++ ) >>> >>> B) SCA Compliant extensions must be compliant with all of the >>> following: >>> a) SCA Assembly, >>> b) SCA Policy and >>> c) SCA Binding >>> >>> >>> What is the Steering Committee position? >>> >>> Additionally, Siemens has challenged the notion that c) should >>> also not be included in the compliancy requirement. >>> >>> What is the Steering Committee position? >>> >>> >>> 7. Any Other Business? >>> None. >>> >>> 8. Future SC Agenda Topics? >>> None >>> >>> 9. Next Meeting >>> - The next regular teleconference is scheduled for August 14th, 2009 >>> 9:00am PST, 12:00pm EST, 5:00pm UK >>> >>> (OpenCSA Steering Committee calls are scheduled for the second Friday >>> of each month.) >>> >>> >>> 10. Adjourn >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> David Burke >>> >>> dburke@tibco.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > -- > Jeff Mischkinsky jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com > Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware +1(650)506-1975 > and Web Services Standards 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9 > Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065 > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php --- Mark Little mlittle@redhat.com JBoss, by Red Hat Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland).
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]