[rights-specification] Concall Notes

["DeMartini, Thomas" <Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM>]

Title: Concall Notes

Please find attached the notes from yesterday's conference call.  Also attached, you will find the spec sc-approved versions of the cmp.doc and cr.dot files.

&Thomas.

<<20020619 spec sc concall.txt>> <<cmp.doc>> <<cr.dot>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Attendees (Y/N):

[Y] Carlisle Adams
[N] Bob Atkinson
[Y] Thomas DeMartini
[N] Bob DuCharme
[Y] John Erickson
[N] Thomas Hardjono
[Y] Kawamori Masahito
[Y] M. Paramasivam
[N] David Parrott
[N] Krishna Sankar
[Y] Peter Shirling
[N] Others: N/A

Action Items:

None.

Schedule:

2002-06-12 Change Management Process Working Draft -- Done.
2002-06-12 Change Request Template Working Draft -- Done.
2002-06-19 Approved Change Management Process SC Draft -- Done.
2002-06-19 Approved Change Request Template SC Draft -- Done.
2002-06-19 -- We Are Here.
2002-06-26 RLTC-Approved Change Management Process.
2002-06-26 RLTC-Approved Change Request Template.
2002-06-26 Begin accepting Change Requests.
2002-09-10 Stop accepting Change Requests.
2002-09-?? Meeting to process Change Requests.
2002-10-15 Finish writing and editing specification.
2002-12-01 Package to OASIS administration for processing.
2003-01-01 Package to OASIS members for review.
2003-04-01 Package to OASIS members for voting.
2003-05-01 OASIS spec.

Previous Action Item Review:

Thomas - Get different call-in number for the 19th.
 -- Done.
Pete - Report back on availability of call-in number after the 19th.
 -- Still working, best to get call-ins until further notice.
All - Work on change management process document.
 -- Done.

Discussion:

* Change Management Process and Change Request Template
  * Carlisle: Does the presence of an "Incompatible" status code
    mean that no incompatible changes will be accepted?
    * Pete: Incompatible changes can be accepted if the TC decides
      to make a new version.
    * Thomas: The code is there in case the reason for rejection is
      that it is incompatible.  If the Spec SC decides to effect an
      incompatible change, the code would be "Effected".
  * Carlisle: What is the meaning of "Documented"?
    * Carlisle: Proposed definition "A change to the specification
      that notes the problem rather than fixes it."
    * John: There is also a distinction as to the normative nature
      of the change.  In this case, the change should be
      non-normative.
    * Agreement: Definition is "An informative change to the
      specification that notes the problem rather than corrects it."
  * John: Which codes indicate rejection?
    * Thomas: Place rejection in description of code.
    * John: The code itself should indicate that for ease of use.
    * Agreement: Add "Rej" to the status codes that indicate
      rejection: "Out of Scope", "As Designed", "Documented",
      "Miscommunication", "No Support", and "Incompatible".
  * John: We should have an indication of the source of the CR.
    * Thomas: "On Behalf Of" is intended for this purpose.  For
      instance, the liaison would fill out their name and e-mail
      address and the organization they are submitting for.  This
      way, when the Spec SC dispositions the CR, they will send
      the result to the liaison e-mail address and the liaison will
      take care of handling the process of relaying that result to
      the specific organization.  This way, the Spec SC can be
      insulated from having to know the internal workings of each
      organization submitting CRs.
    * Carlisle: Typo -- should be "Submitted On Behalf Of", not
      "Submitter On Behalf Of".
    * Agreement: Fix the typo.
  * The two documents were unanimously approved with the agreed
    edits.
* Possible dates for face-to-face meeting in September
  * Pete: Might be able to tack on some days to USNB meeting to
    limit travel for some: Sept 30th-Oct 1st.
  * Pete: Recommend two days, even if it is one afternoon and one
    morning, just to give people a chance to digest stuff overnight.
  * Carlisle/Parama: Would be nice to tie with an RLTC meeting.
  * Pete: Agree if there is an RLTC meeting to tie to it would
    be better.
  * Thomas: Concerned that the end of Sept/beginning of Oct doesn't
    leave enough time to edit spec until the 15th.  We should shoot
    for as soon after the 10th as possible.
  * John: Seybold is the week of the 9th and OeBF is the week of the
    16th.
  * Pete: Labor day is the 2nd.
  * Thomas: How long do Seybold and OeBF go?
  * John: Seybold till Friday, OeBF till Wednesday, but could do
    something the 12th and 13th colocated with Seybold.
  * Thomas: Could do Monday before USNB meeting.
  * Thomas: Could do 19th/20th after OeBF.
  * John: Going to be traveling after OeBF, but wouldn't mind doing
    something in Washington on the 18th or 20th.
  * Parama: 18th is middle of the week, not so good.
  * Parama: 20th would waste a weekend of travel for people on west
    coast also going to USNB.
  * Someone: Lets just submit some choices to RLTC and see what they
    want to do.
  * Thomas: Okay, it seems like the two choices that seem to work
    for us are Sept 12th-13th, and Sept 30th-Oct 1st.
  * Parama: But the 30th was too late.
  * Thomas: Yeah, I think we should shoot for the 12th and 13th and
    leave the other one as a second choice.
* Anything else
  * Kawamori: Still having problems with list signups.
  * Thomas: Will look into it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: cmp.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Attachment: cr.dot
Description: Binary data