[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [rights] Meeting minutes approval - email vote
I've attached text copies of these minutes, for those who find this more convenient to review. Anne Anderson On 10 March, Reddy, Hari writes: [rights] Meeting minutes approval - email vote > We did not have quorum at the last General Body call on March 5, 2003. Therefore, we were not able to approve the meeting minutes per the agenda. At the meeting, we discussed having this posted to the General Body list for email vote. > > To reduce the email traffic, please send me an email only if you disagree to the approval of the following meeting minutes before 03/15/03: > > 02-05-03: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200302/msg00003.html> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200302/msg00003.html > 10-16-02: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200302/msg00001.html> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200302/msg00001.html > 10-30-02: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200302/msg00001.html> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200302/msg00001.html -- Anne H. Anderson Email: Anne.Anderson@Sun.COM Sun Microsystems Laboratories 1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311 Tel: 781/442-0928 Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA Fax: 781/442-1692
RLTC General Body Call, Wed. February 5, 2003, 5pm Hari took roll call at 5:01pm Hari Reddy, Chairperson ContentGuard Carlisle Adams Entrust Michelle Aden Sun Microsystems Anne Anderson Sun Microsystems Steve Anderson OpenNetwork Robin Cover Individual Thomas DeMartini ContentGuard Patrick Durusau Society of Biblical Literature Thomas Hardjono VeriSign Masahito Kawamori Individual Brian LaMacchia Microsoft Hal Lockhart Entegrity Systems Deirdre Mulligan Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic Ram Austryjak Moskovitz VeriSign M. Paramasivam Microsoft Harry Piccariello ContentGuard Dmitry Radbel Universal Music Group Lisa Rein Individual Xin Wang ContentGuard Greg Wiley Individual Prospective Members Name Firm TJ Pannu ContentGuard February 05, 2003 Agenda: 1. Administrative 1.1 Roll Call (<<<<<<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/rltc/membership/OASIS%20Rights%20Language%20Technical%20Committee%20Membership.htm>>>>>>) 1.2 New Member Introductions 1.3 Agenda Review and Concurrence 1.4. Future Meeting Schedule 2. Subcommittee Review Review of Progress: Requirements SC: Bob Glushko and Hari Reddy, Co-Chairs Hari: We haven't received any new members since the last call. Hal Lockhart: Minutes haven't been posted in awhile, just wanted to make sure they weren't somewhere else and I wasn't looking in the right place. Hari: That's correct, Brad hasn't been able to post them yet. He'll be getting them out soon. The last few that were sent out, there wasn't enough time to review them, so we'll process them at the next meeting. Hal: No problem. I just wanted to know if I missed where they were. Hari: There is one other item I didn't put on the agenda. It's the migration to the KAVI system. I'm going for training on this, and I'll send an email with regards to my impression. It'll be all web-based and I've heard some good things about it, hopefully it will help us so we don't have to manage the doc repository like we do now. I've submitted the membership listing. Hari: Item 1.4: new meeting schedule. I received an email from several members requesting that the General Body meet once a month until there is more progress s. The suggestion is that we would meet every 4 weeks as opposed to the current every other week. Are there comments or objections to this? (No comments) Hari: The next meeting would be March 5. (No objections). I'll communicate that to the General Body. As to the subcommittee review, I'll speak for requirements. Basically, we're still reviewing the comments we received through the call for comments and we received comments from Samuelson Law Clinic, Sun and SBL and also Robin Cover. Ann: You said you got comments from Sun. Those were comments from me as a member of the sub-committee. Hari: That's different than what you informed me. I'll note the change. Hari: We'll be reviewing the use cases that were submitted from the Law Clinic next week. I invite people from the general body to participate in the Requirements SC. The SC meets every Wed at 11am ET. I'll be sending that agenda out in the next few days. Were there any other comments from any of the other SC chairs (no comments)? Hari: If there are no other items, I'd like to call the meeting to close if there are no other comments or objections (No comments or objections were made) Several people came in late and asked that their name be added to the roll list. Hari re-read the roll list to make sure everyone was accounted for. As there were no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15pm.
General RLTC Committee Meeting - 5pm, Wednesday, October 16, 2002 Roll Call: Hari Reddy Ann Anderson Steve Anderson Bob Atkinson Aaron Bernstein Robin Cover Thomas DeMartini Patrick Durusau Brad Gandee Thomas Hardjono Bennie Higdon Masahito Kawamori Hal Lockhart Ram Moskovitz Martha Nalebuff M. Paramasivam Harry Picariello Dmitry Radbel Dean Rowan Krishna Sankar Peter Schirling Xin Wang Prospective Members: Barbara Fox Simon Godik Brian LaMacchia Hari reviewed agenda for concurrence. No changes or additional items were requested. October 16, 2002 Agenda: 1. Administrative 1.1 Roll Call (<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/rltc/membership/OASIS%20Rights%20Language%20Technical%20Committee%20Membership.htm>) 1.2 New Member Introductions 1.3 Agenda Review and Concurrence 2. Motion by Hal Lockhart on modification of voting rules: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200209/msg00088.html 3. RLTC Minutes 3.1 To approve 08-12-02 Meeting Minutes: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200210/msg00002.html 4. Subcommittee Review Review of Progress: Governance/Liaison SC: Peter Schirling and Brad Gandee, Co-Chairs Requirements SC: Bob Glushko and Hari Reddy, Co-Chairs Core and Standard Extension Specification SC: Thomas DeMartini, Chair Examples SC: Bob DuCharme, Chair Profiles and Extensions Process SC: Thomas DeMartini and M. Paramasivam, Co-Chairs 5. Review of RLTC Aggregate Schedule (<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/rltc/schedule/RLTC%20Schedule.xls>) 2.0 Motion by Hal Lockhart on modification of voting rules Hari: I would like to discuss the motion by Hal Lockhart for every benefit of everyone. This motion was presented at the last general body meeting. We reached this item on the agenda at 5:58 PM. Despite the plea of many to have adequate time to discuss this motion and the offer of presenting this motion at the present meeting, both offers were rejected. Subsequent to this rejection, there was a motion by Hal and seconded by Anne Anderson and Mike Godwin to prohibit debate which was presented and voted on at 6:20 PM. This motion was rejected which leads to the inclusion of this discussion in this meeting. I would like to read the motion again from Hal Lockhart's email for the benefit of the membership: Fair Vote Procedure Whereas the members of the Rights Language TC have multiple important obligations and responsibilities, outside the work of the TC including business travel and other meetings, conferences, etc. And, whereas the TC has been unable to achieve consensus on many issues and has been forced to proceed by simple majority vote in many cases. And whereas, decisions on the important work of the TC merits due reflection and an opportunity for every member to vote who wishes to, The following procedure, called the Fair Voting Rule, is adopted. For any vote on a major issue of TC scope, policy, establishment of subcommittees, agreement on completion of any work items, specifically including: · Agreement to accept any document as a work product of this TC · Agreement to submit or convey any document from this committee to any other group or organization either inside or outside OASIS · Agreement to make any document available for public review. The following procedure must be followed. 1. Notice of the intention to hold such a vote must be given via the RLTC main mailing list (rights@lists.oasis-open.org) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at which the vote is to be taken. 2. The vote must occur within the scheduled hours of the meeting 3. If the meeting is two hours or longer in duration, such as a face to face meeting, the time of the vote must be announced, not later than the beginning of the session on that day and the vote must take place within 30 minutes following the announced time. 4. The Chair is empowered to curtail debate and call the question if necessary in order to meet either of these time constraints. Any vote to alter, amend, revoke or suspend this rule must follow Fair Voting Rule. ------------------------------------------------------------ I would like to open the floor for members to discuss this motion Hal Lockhart: People have raised some really good points on the email list. First of all, I'd like to apologize for last meeting. I wasn't trying to curtail debate. I was really trying to be responsive to both the people who were anxious to vote and the people who were trying to end the meeting but I guess you can't make everybody happy. Hari: One of the problems was that there was a legitimate privilege motion to adjourn the meeting that was disregarded. I already received numerous complaints that people could not pick up their children due to the fact that we could not even decide to adjourn. Hal: It was probably a poor decision. There has been some good discussion. One of points that was raised was that if seven days was too long. I would consider something shorter. One suggestion which was two days seems too short to me The point I want to emphasis is the advance notice isn't just whether you decide to come to the meeting or not. It is about having enough time to make sure you understand the issue. The idea is to avoid the situation where you don't know prior to the meeting that you're going to have to make a decision on the points. There was another question on what distinguishes between serious and non serious or major or minor issues. I think we would all agree that approving minutes is something minor. The motion itself lists a number of things that I consider major. I don't really see that as important problem in practice. If we have a disagreement, we could just immediately schedule an email vote. Are there any other concerns? Brad Gandee: Speaking in opposition to this motion, I don't understand why this TC needs special rules. OASIS has a TC process. There are associated rules. There is also Robert's Rules of Order. We have always had the opportunity for an email vote if we want to use it. I'm not sure why this TC needs another special rule for it to do it's work. Hall: In the SAML TC for example, virtually all votes are unanimous and secondly all votes on major things like accepting a document or forming a new subcommittee were known weeks in advance. So the reason we need the rule here is because these things are happening by themselves as a matter of course so I felt we need an explicit rule. Brad: I'm not sure what the rule would do to build unanimity. Hal: The rule isn't attempting to do that. Harry: Are you amending the previous request to 5 days on a vote if we can't come to terms on a vote? Would there be a 5 day voting period on whether it's a major issue or not? Hal: No just to vote. In other words say we have some issue that some people legitimately think it a minor issue and some think it's a major issue. I'm just saying we immediately set an email vote on the issue itself, not whether to vote on it or not. Harry, but that's a turn around of ten-day Hal: No, 5 days. Hari: We already have a process for members to request to have email voting on a motion. Aaron: I think I saw more of a notice function and not just that someone could request an email vote. I think that knowing an issue would be up for a vote will would help people to prepare for discussion. Hari: A lot of those procedures are embellished in Roberts Rules of Order, which have been tried and tested. I'm just concerned that ambiguity in the present motion will surface in the future if this is accepted and I much rather refer to and employ Roberts Rules of Order. There is wide acceptance and references that people can refer to concerning the mechanics of Robert's Rule of Order. Hal: I don't see any ambiguity. Anne Anderson: I see no ambiguity what so ever. If anyone objects to a vote that is being taken, it immediately becomes one of these delayed votes. Hal: Robert's Rules of Order does permit special voting procedures. For instance, you won't find an email vote anywhere in RROO Anne Anderson: Robert's Rules of Order are not really set-up very well for this kind of meeting. Hari: I would like Karl Best to address that last statement. Karl Best: Robert's Rules of Order does have a provision of voting by mail which we will interpret as email for our purposes the OASIS TC. In OASIS we set a minimum period of 5 days. Hal: Karl, doesn't the OASIS process also have a sentence that TC can adopt additional rules. Karl: Yes. An OASIS TC can adopt standing rules and this is defined by RROO. It essentially says that a committee can make a standing rule. So as long as the rule doesn't conflict with other sections of RROO or the OASIS TC process then that's perfectly valid. Pete Schirling: In the spirit of what we're discussing is already embodied in what we're trying to do in the RLTC, I would have to object to it. What would happen is, when we have major issues, we have to leave it to the group as a whole to recognize the importance of these issues. I think the process is in place to give sufficient warning to all of us to know that the issue is coming to the table and perhaps we need to consult if we're out of touch. It also has the unfortunate consequence that it could very well really impede the progress we could make by having any one person make a minor issue into a major issue. We would then have a lengthy period slowing down the entire process of trying to get a specification completed. RROO handles this very well and to try to augment it puts it on shaky ground. I think we have to stay with what we know works and rely on each other to understand the difference between minor and major and make sure we do have the ability to give the major issues a proper discussion before we go to ballot on them Hari: With regards to major issues we have tired to publish those specific dates on the schedule which we really haven't followed the schedule so people had warning or due notice of dates to expect for example the requirements document and when to expect the specification. This has been out for several months. Hal: I have to disagree with 2 points Pete made, someone delaying progress by claiming something was a major issue when it was minor, I just don't see it. First of all the voting period would only be 5 days less than half the interval of 2 of our normal meeting and 2nd if it's truly a minor issue it not going to hold up anything anyway for instance like approving the minutes or agreeing to what color the binder on the document should be. I don't see how tying up something like that if it truly is minor would interfere with anything. The other point to the history in responding to both Harry and Pete in this TC that this has happened with less than 5 minutes notice. Hari: Hall, which issue are you referring to? Hal: On Sept. 18 we had a vote to cut off all requirements at a certain date and that vote was not indicated in the minutes. Hari: It was indicated in the minutes. Hal: Another example was where we had a face to face where we had people on in the morning voted and actively participated. After discussions had been going on for six or seven hours we suddenly had a vote on the subject of royalty free. I don't want get into the issue of how people conduct themselves in the past. I don't want to raise old issues. Hari: But you have. Hal: I want the clear the deck going forward and use a process that is fair to everyone. The circle of evidence is this rule is needed. It's not superfluous Hari: Hal if I could address your statement. For the first item, you're saying a vote was taken in 5 minutes. Hal: Well I'm saying in terms of the advance notice in terms that there was going to be any kind of vote on the subject, yes Hari: In the entire meeting that you are referring to, we had a discussion about the schedule. This is not a discussion that is unique to that meeting since we have had this discussion for several meetings. During the meeting a member, Pete Schirling, made a motion to have a way to assist the requirements SC to achieve a consensus. Pete: The discussion was an item that was on the agenda and announced. Hal: Not that there was going to be a vote to cut off requirements in the beginning of Aug or anything to that effect. I mean yes there was going to be a discussion of the requirements sub-committee, agreed, yes and the work of the requirements sub-committee was discussed for an hour or so. I'm not interested in challenging or debating the merits of past decision. Hari: No but you're bring up the issues and I would just like to address them. Hal: Okay Thomas: I was on that call that Hal is referring and as far as I can remember the whole point of that call was a practical question we were late in our schedule. So do we want to decide to get back to the schedule that was put on the charter or do you yet again want to wait another week or another two week before deciding whether or not we stick with the schedule? To me we obviously didn't need a vote but some people complained that the schedule is unreasonable and we had to have a vote. If every time someone has a question, we need to send out a voting invitation this group would never finish. I completely agree with Pete this idea that you have is not required. Anyone can bring up a small issue and blow it up into a big issue and we have to wait 5 days for another vote. Effectively this could be used as a method of delaying. Peter: The spirit of the resolution proposes is a good spirit and I think we need to as a group embody the spirit. We need to continue to maintain rules that we have in place that have been effective for a good amount of time and work harder to make that rule set works rather than establishing new rules at this point. Hal: It's my perception that the spirit of this has not been observed and the practice has been different from the spirit. I consider this was a major decision that should have been announced in advance. Bob Atkinson: I think someone can turn even the minutes approval into a major issue and to the extent that we need to do any motions serially we'll work through these at the rate of 1 every 5 days or every two weeks. Hal: There is nothing in the proposal that suggests that. Suppose we hit the minutes and someone says that's major and we say fine we will do an email vote and me move on to the next issue which is something important like should we agree on the specification or should we create a liaison with some other organization or something of significance. BobA: I can well imagine we will progress at one motion every two weeks. Hall: I didn't mention the difference between major and minor issues. This would be obvious. We are all people of intelligence and of good will. It comes down to are you worried about the process being obstructed or being railroaded? BobA: If you believe that were all intelligent and of good will then your motion would seem unnecessary: Hal: Even though as a member of this committee I try to remain engaged in everything, I can't be full conversant with all issues and if something is serious and important I would like to have time to think about, learn about it, discuss with my peers and make an intelligent vote. That won't happen if the vote is taken in the middle of the meeting on a 5 minutes notice. Hari: You keeping saying 5 minutes notice. What do you mean by 5 min notice? The motion from my notes is from the beginning of the meeting. The whole meeting was basically the discussion. So if there is a motion presented to the table I would assume there would be a vote on it during the meeting which just goes back to why Roberts Rules of Order are important and allows us to manage these meetings. I have to agree with Pete. I think that while the intent of your motion is good I'm just concerned with its vagueness. I would like to have a firm book, which I have with RROO. I think there's already a little ambiguity in the proposal. Brad: Maybe we should just vote on this, we've had plenty of discussion and now were repeating ourselves Hal, I agree I believe we are at the point we should just vote. Hari, ok if there are no objections, I'll take the vote. No objections were noted and vote was taken. Anne Anderson: Hari, it is customary for the chairman not to vote unless in the event of a tie that needs to be broken. Hari: Karl Best, could you answer that for us Karl: It is customary but not required, so Hari is free to vote. Hari: The results are: 7 yes 12 no 3 abstain Hari: The Motion is defeated. Again, I would like to give my opinion. I think the intent is well taken and I would like everybody to at least work together to be bit more inclusive. Pete: Here, here. Hal: I very much appreciate the comments and that there is some concurrence around the spirit if not the specific mechanism. Hari: Absolutely Hal. Hal: I appreciate it. 3. RLTC Minutes 3.1 To approve 08-12-02 Meeting Minutes: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights/200210/msg00002.html Brad: I've received no comments or any edits Hari: This is a vote to approve the minutes of 08-12-02? Are there any objections? No objections were noted. Hari: I will note the minutes as approved and I will put that in the document repository. 4. Subcommittee Review Review of Progress: Governance/Liaison SC: Peter Schirling and Brad Gandee, Co-Chairs Brad: we held a meeting last week. We had 2 of us on the call. We finalized a letter to MPEG, which was to tell them about the CR, generated from the liaison statement. That's what we discussed and we sent it out. The upcoming call on Friday is cancelled as most of us will be away. Requirements SC: Bob Glushko and Hari Reddy, Co-Chairs Hari: The requirements team has been meeting every week and one of things we are currently doing is trying to provide clarification in the requirements document. Parma would you like to provide a quick description of the introduction. I invite everyone to subscribe to the requirements subcommittee email group and look through the archive. They're some good discussion of the actual scope and the work product and the requirements. Parma: I'll probably just repeat what I said this morning but a couple of weeks ago there was a difference of opinion of what does rights actually mean. Last week during the requirements call it was brought up that we should actually clarify what rights actually means and perhaps have some sort of description what it referees to, i.e., permission and also define the scope of what the TC might actually address. None of this has been approved or anything and I was just trying to address what the TC will do and what does a rights language mean in this context that the TC addresses. I wrote a brief summary of what the TC is not working on and also what rights might actually pertain to and sent it out last night and I believe Hari has incorporated this into the requirements document. Also, John made a couple of suggestions on how to further define what permissions mean and that's also in the document. Right now what we have is a self-contained requirements document, which describes the requirements of the RLTC and also what the terms mean. I'm not sure what the next step ought to be but I think the general body should review that and decide whether that is an acceptable direction or not Hari: If you go to the rights requirements archive you will see version sent today. I invite everyone to provide comments to help us to get to some consensus. The next step that we have is, John and Parma are going to provide a small paragraph describing permissions some more. After that's done, I will take that and then I will roll that up into the next version of requirements document. Again, I would invite members of the general body to look at the document so when you do receive it won't be a surprise. This document has been out there for actually several months. It is essentially the same one but we've made some good progress in helping to define a little bit more Core and Standard Extension Specification SC: Thomas DeMartini, Chair Thomas: We went through the items from the face to face and we made sure we agreed. No one had any new thoughts. We went ahead and changed those to "in progress" and we still have 2 more open issues. We are still waiting on the specs to get edited. Simon: If I want to locate this text where do I find it Thomas: Currently we don't have a draft of the Text. We have documents in the repository. Some of them are marked "in progress". There also will not be a call today. Examples SC: Bob DuCharme, Chair Bob DuCharme: I was on jury duty and unable to meet. Profiles and Extensions Process SC: Thomas DeMartini and M. Paramasivam, Co-Chairs Parma: I was going to follow from the examples ?we didn't meet and I personally have been working on requirements and have not had time to work on this. 5. Review of RLTC Aggregate Schedule (<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/rltc/schedule/RLTC%20Schedule.xls>) Hari: With regards to the RLTC Aggregate schedule, we haven't been able to meet key dates which puts this schedule at risk. For example the specification the SC draft was targeted for October 15 and has not been delivered. Hal: Aaron published something and maybe he has comments. Aaron: I would call it an application. Hal: I thought that was a schedule. Hari: The note is a hypothetical that maps the OASIS approval process. Hal: Okay. Aaron: I think there is informational value. Hari: But this was not a proposed schedule. While we may be able to use what you have provided, I thought you were going to come up with a proposed schedule. Aaron: That was not my understanding of what I was volunteering to do. Brad: It has been presented to the general body that several people have repeatedly objected to every word and every thing was rejected out of hand. There has been no response as to what to do to move forward and no suggestion. Rehashing the TC process doesn't get us any closer to where we need to be. Aaron: I'm sorry that you can't use what I presented. Hari: Are there any other items ? I have 5:57 PM Motion to adjourn. Approved Meeting adjourned at 5:57 PM.
General RLTC Committee Meeting - 5pm, Wednesday, October 30, 2002 Roll Call: Ann Anderson Steve Anderson Bob Atkinson Corey Doctorow Bob DeCharme Brad Gandee Chris Kurt Ron Moskowitz Martha Nalbuff Parama Harry Piccarriello Dimitri Radbel Krishna Sankar Lisa Seaburg Peter Schirling Barbara Fox Greg Wiley Carlisle Adams Karl Best Thomas DeMartini New Member Introductions: Hari: New member: Greg Wiley - introduce yourself to the general body and your interest in rights language. Greg: I work in building rights digital distribution software and specifications at Universal Music Group. Hari: Does anyone have any additional agenda item to add? (No comments) Hari: Question re: requirements revision 14, on documents repository and also on email list for rights requirements, if you have any problems getting it, it's under requirements analysis "works in progress". If anyone has any docs they want to post, please send them to me and tell me location you want them to be put into. Hari: Next agenda item, I would like to approve minutes for 9/18/02. Brad has not received any inputs. Any objections to approval? (No comments) Noted as approved, will be put into doc repository. Hari: Next the minutes of 10/02/02. Brad: Have not received any comments marked for them. Hari: Any objections to approval? (No comments). Will note these as approved and will put in doc repository. Hari: Next time: subcommittee review. Standing item on all general body calls. Governance & Liaison SC: Peter Schirling and Brad Gandee Brad: Have not had meeting since last general meeting as most people traveling. Should be receiving a response from MPEG on our liaison on change request processed by us. Will be getting thank you note from us, will take input under advisement and will deal with it at Japan meeting in December. No other news Requirements SC: Bob Glushko & Hari Reddy Co-Chairs Hari: A lot of people know that what we need is to achieve consensus within requirements subcommittee and what we've done is put in an introduction to RLTC requirements clarifying a lot of elements inside of requirements doc so it stands as a stand-alone document. Would like the general body to look at it to feel comfortable to it. Not presented to general body, but just look at it as work in progress. I invite people to send comments to requirements list or even subscribe to the requirements list. Other key item was an action item. We went over an item by Deidre and Brian basically to understand if there was a problem in the mathematical expressiveness of XrML. There was a con call with the rep of the Samuelson Clinic - Deidre, Aaron, and John, joined with Brian to review it. Will refer people to the email Brian sent out. Two actions: request clarification language around revocation and Brian will author that. Next action: direct extensions and process subcommittee to include guidance for system implementers to be cognizant of some issues around fair use. Refer people to email from Brian to get a better understanding. Other point that came out was suggestion that example subcommittee start to do more examples to look at areas where language needed to be changed or added to - basically a top down approach. Deidre had the action to develop a schedule around that and that would feed into the requirements process. Any comments (No comments heard.) John: I think you captured the call we had with Brian pretty well. Hari: There was also a document that talked to the revocation discussion and I refer people to that, which was attached in Brian's email. John: Don't know if it was adequately characterized, but it was a significant issue (with publication). Hari: Think fix was easy, but flushed out by this discussion. Coe & Standard Extension SC: Thomas DeMartini Chair Thomas: No news to report Examples SC: Bob DuCharme, Chair Bob DuC: Haven't met in awhile, some examples coming in. Unless people are sure XrML fits their need perfectly, I'd think that people would be working to see if it fits and that's what examples are for. People should suggest scenarios and send those in. I heard you say that a schedule is going to be set for requirements, but I wish they would send in scenarios. Is that going to happen? Hari: 3 scenarios are with Samuelson Law committee, we should get some description from them of the work flows. But the suggestion to go forward is to have people submit examples to examples sub-committee to work on in the hopes of finding other requirements. So, who actually will be submitting use cases - I invite people in the general body to do that and the other action was to determine a schedule for submitting that schedule. We've been asking for examples from the membership, but I hope we may get more from this. Bob DuC: Some are coming and to hear there are more on the way is great news. Can't believe people are 100% confident XrML fits their needs and that's what the examples subcommittee is for. Profiles and extensions SC: Thomas DeMartini and Parma, CoChairs (Deidre just joined) Thomas: No news Hari: Last item I had was - as standing line item - review of aggregate schedule. If anyone has any comments or ideas, I'd like to entertain them. Right now, the schedule is at risk. Deidre: Our discussion this morning, giving the examples subcommittee more examples to work with and to have some kind of time frame to do that in to get information back to the Requirements SC and get back on the specs because there are changes to be made. Hari: I mentioned this already during the requirements committee review. Deidre: Are people receptive to this? Hari: Once we figure out what the timeline is, we can present it to the general body. Deidre: That would be my feedback on whether we're going off schedule, would be setting a schedule for that. Hari: Are there any other items that people would like to discuss. Brad: Moved to adjourn. Adjournment seconded. Meeting adjourned at 5:23pm
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]