[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 - 10 July 2009,
Sure. I think we can ask the TC chairs to provide the following information: For each deliverable specification - - What is the current status of the specification (CD, CS, PR, etc)? - What is the remaining amount of work in terms of number of open issues, estimated time to resolve, etc? - What is the status of testing (Test Assertions complete, Test Case complete, In PR, etc)? - What is the estimated timeline of completing the testing work? - How many compliant implementations do you expect to become available before finalization of the specification? Which ones are they? - Are there any concerns regarding the completion of the spec work which the SC should be aware of and can help with? - Are there any issues that require coordination with the other TCs via the Liaison Subcommittee? Anything else we would like to know? Based on the TC chairs' replies, we can decide whether a coordination via LSC calls is warranted or not! Best wishes, Sanjay -----Original Message----- From: David Burke [mailto:dburke@tibco.com] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:27 AM To: Jeff Mischkinsky Cc: Patil, Sanjay; opencsa-ms@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [opencsa-ms] Proposed - OpenCSA Steering Committee (StC) Proposed Agenda - 10 July 2009, Just to be clear, the update should cover all the dimensions of "how close is the TC to exit status?" This would include status and estimated future timeline of the spec, testing, availability of compliant implementations, and anything else related. Regards, David On Oct 8, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Jeff Mischkinsky wrote: > hi sanjay, > So I think you should get that process started so we have some real data for our next SC meeting on nov 12. > > Also, should we have an LSC meeting to discuss before the 12th? > > cheers, > jeff > On Oct 07, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Patil, Sanjay 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 > > > > > > > > > David Burke dburke@tibco.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]