Re: OSLC TCs telcos

["Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>]

I didn't take any
minutes today - we had quorum issues. Its great to have Jad back! We did
discuss the OP and whether this is something we really think we should
do. Overall conclusion (I think):

1. We are not
too concerned about having only two companies on the PGB (IBM and KTH).
It would be nice to get at least one more, but we think its more important
to have PGB members who will be in a position to actively contribute and
govern effectively.

2. No-one seems
too concerned about loosing the Member Section budget - it doesn't seem
to have been that significant to OSLC's success.

3. Its not clear
that migrating from MS/TCs to OP will have that much effect on OSLC. OSLC
seems to be a mature, stable, standard, well implemented technology with
limited interest for big changes or significant new domains or features.
That's not necessarily bad. The biggest immediate advantage of the OP is
the ability to include contribution from non-OASIS TSC members. That could
result in new innovation.

4. The main concern
seems to be that we get the current set of specifications completed, through
public review, and to at least Committee Specification if not OASIS Standard.
The focus should be on OSLC Query, Tracked Resource Sets, Configuration
Management and Quality Management specifications. We would like to target
completing this work by the end of 2019.

5. Anything organizationally,
process related, or legally that prevents the current Domains and Core
TC participants from continuing their contribution to the OP, especially
those people involved in the remaining specifications to complete (Nick,
David, Ian, Gray), may be seen as a blocker to migrating to the OP.

6. Nick and I
are exploring the process for getting IBM to sign the Entity CLA, and what
we have to be able to do to sign the Individual CLA. 

Jim Amsden, Senior
Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle
Data
919-525-6575