OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-assembly message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Draft Minutes from 2009-08-19 are attached


Title: SCA-Assy - 2009-08-19

OASIS Logo

- DRAFT -

OASIS SCA-Assembly TC

19 AUG 2009

Attendees

Present

Robert Freund Hitachi, Ltd. Group Member
Eric Wells Hitachi, Ltd. Group Member
Bryan Aupperle IBM Group Member
David Booz IBM Group Member
Mike Edwards IBM Group Member
Simon Holdsworth IBM Group Member
Mike Kaiser IBM Group Member
Peter Niblett IBM Group Member
Simon Nash Individual Group Member
Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation Group Member
Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation Group Member
Rich Levinson Oracle Corporation Group Member
Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation Group Member
Gilbert Pilz Oracle Corporation Group Member
Aninda Sengupta Oracle Corporation Group Member
Clemens Utschig - Utschig Oracle Corporation Group Member
Sanjay Patil SAP AG* Group Member
Plamen Pavlov SAP AG* Group Member
Najeeb Andrabi TIBCO Software Inc. Group Member
Murty Gurajada TIBCO Software Inc. Group Member
Sabin Ielceanu TIBCO Software Inc. Group Member
Danny van der Rijn TIBCO Software Inc. Group Member
Scott Vorthmann TIBCO Software Inc. Group Member

Chairs

Martin Chapman
Mike Edwards

Scribe

Eric Wells

Agenda:

1. Intro/Roll Call
2. Discussion on Issue-80 and OSOA Contribution

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-80

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/download.php/32379/SCA_Assembly_Extensions_for_Event_Processing_and_PubSub_V1_0.pdf

3. AOB

Contents

Topics
[1]  Opening
[2]  AOB
Table of Resolutions
Table of Action Items

Action Items


Resolutions


Minutes

Scribe: Eric Wells

Opening

Roll call - 18/25 = 72% Quorate
Agenda - Issue 80 only
DannyV:
Is call about issue or scheduling, etc?
MartinC:
Both - can deal with however seems appropriate
<anish>
questions that i see are: should we do anything for issue 80? if yes, when and which version etc? what is the tech. solution?
EricW:
We should separate scheduling and technical issues
ScottV:
Also if calls should be "official" full TC calls or subcommittee
SanjayP:
How much work is involved - whether to include in fist version of spec or delay till later
<Scott>
Eric, I was not suggesting any question of "fullness" of calls
<Scott>
they must be full TC
<Mike Edwards>
Scott - that is an interesting point, so you would rule out having a subcommittee?
<clemensutschig>
I think no matter which timeline - we should focus on tech issues
<clemensutschig>
that is on this call
AnishK:
Summarizes points for discussion
<Sanjay>
I think we should discuss technical issues because they do have bearing on the timing, etc, non-technical issues
<clemensutschig>
+1
MikeE:
Reviews reasons for this call...
<anish>
i would be happy to discuss technical issues. personally that is what i want to do. but i'm trying to be sensitive to other opinions where there was a disagreement on whether we should even do anything on this and whether we should have any extra calls
 
...to avoid impacting other issues in regular TC calls
MikeE:
Call options:
 
...(1) separate subcommittee calls
 
...(2) extend regular TC calls (1/2 hour) for issue 80 only
 
...(3) Treat two successive meetings (Tue & Wed) as single meeting ala F2F meetings
<anish>
i don't think subcommittee makes sense, given that there are multiple views on this, it would just be a debating society
<clemensutschig>
I agree - option (3) seems to be the best in terms of making progress
Motion: m=DannyV s=SanjayP Defer ASSEMBLY-80 until later version of spec.
<Ashok>
Yes, option 3 on telcons seems the best option
MartinC:
Oracle sees eventing as essential to SCA and wants it incorporated ASAP
 
...that would mean starting work now even if eventing goes into later version of spec
 
...otherwise there would be too much delay
AnishK:
Have already deferred and un-deferred ASSEMBLY-80
 
...seems strange to defer again and make no further considerations for some indefinte time
AnishK:
Speaks against the motion
MikeE:
What is the point of deferring?
DannyV:
Previously had (long) discussion on this but couldn't resolve in regular TC call
 
...the motion was made to have that discussion in this call
SanjayP:
+1 but also not to prevent work but to place eventing in post version 1.1 spec.
AshokM:
If we started on technical work the we could determine where contribution is lacking
 
...allows better determination of work involved
SanjayP:
Intention is to do release planning work to make specific determination.
EricW:
I thought deferring meant no agenda time for topic?
Amendment: m=AnishK s=SimonN Defer ASSEMBLY-80 to post 1.1 and continue techincal discussion in parallel with regular TC calls
AshokM:
Would technical work start immediately?
AnishK:
Subsequent decision about how to progress - separate calls etc.
ScottV:
Not happy with parallel calls - limited availability
 
...just can't accommodate extra calls - even though eventing is really important
SanjayP:
A few small addition calls to do release planning and determine work
 
...would be happy with amendment if "in parallel" was removed
<anish>
+1 to SimonN to broad interpretation of "parallel"
<Ashok>
+1 to Simon
<Sanjay>
friendly amendment - s/in parallel with regular TC calls//
SimonN:
We should take broadest view of "in parallel"
 
...any arrangement of calls would be OK as long as some progress is being made
<anish>
how about: Defer ASSEMBLY-80 to post 1.1 and continue work on issue 80 concurrently with 1.1
<anish>
would that work for you sanjay?
DannyV:
Need to be specific about what amendment means before voting
<anish>
this says nothing about TC calls
<Sanjay>
fine by me, Anish
<Danny van der Rijn>
@anish: yet my original motion, actually does
<Simon Nash>
yes that sounds good
<anish>
@danny: your original motion only says defer -- this in the past means no concurrent work
MikeE:
Voting rights and resource scheduling is very important and needs to be taken into account
AnishK:
Withdraws amendment
AnishK:
New admendment - in keep ing with above discussion
<anish>
Defer ASSEMBLY-80 to post 1.1 and continue work on issue 80 concurrently with 1.1
<Martin C>
and MAY
Amendment: m=AnishK s=SimonN: Defer ASSEMBLY-80 to post 1.1 and continue work on issue 80 concurrently with 1.1
DannyV:
What does this mean in terms of scheduling and voting rights - needs to be specific
AnishK:
We should make scheduling and voting rights as separate decision
 
...this amendment is just to determine intention to work on eventing - not to determine schduling
<anish>
danny, you can try for a separate amendment
DannyV:
But committing TC to work on issue implicitly commits to scheduling
<Sanjay>
+1 to MikeE - organizing scheduling will take some time and is better handled by a separate amendment/motion
MikeE:
Call the question on the amendment
<gilbert.pilz>
zakim, who is noisy?
<clemensutschig>
can people please mute?
No objections to calling the question
<Sanjay>
zakim is fiddling with his phone to join this call :-)
Objections to amendment - Yes DannyV
<Simon Nash>
maybe me, on mute now
<Simon Nash>
in a slightly windy place
<Dave Booz>
simon, i think it was you
Vote: Yes = 12, No = 5, Abstain = 0 - Amendment passed
Objections to motion as amended
No objections to motion
<clemensutschig>
+1 for continueing the call.
<Simon Nash>
+1 for anish's suggestion
Resolution: Defer ASSEMBLY-80 to post 1.1 and continue work on issue 80 concurrently with 1.1 w/o
<Simon Nash>
just for 1 more week
<Simon Nash>
then we can decide about the regular pattern
<Martin C>
+1
<anish>
that is was I was thinking, simon
AnishK:
Should these calls continue?
MikeE:
Need some discussion on this as it has a big impact on some people
<anish>
we're almost out of time, can we decide just on next week's call?
<clemensutschig>
+1 - to whomever just speaks.
<Martin C>
other Tc's span the same meeting over more then one day
<clemensutschig>
well - there is not much difference between making the call longer or having seperate
EricW:
Not just about voting rights - Can interested parties actually attend additional calls?
<anish>
play with words, s/adjourn/recess/ ;-) changes everything
<Bob>
The TC needs to make a decision that the session spans a defined pair of meetings. The first would be recessed then continued. The second would be adjourned.
<Simon Nash>
there could be a difference in terms of people's availability
BobF:
Roberts Rules allows a session to consist of more than one meeting separated by recesses. We have been usually operation on a one meeting equals one session basis.
<clemensutschig>
+1 next week ..
MikeE:
One more call next week to continue discussion?
Seems to be acceptable to most people

AOB

Stragger role - MurtyG PeterN
COB 10:03AM PDT

[End of Minutes]
Formatted on 2009-08-20 at 06:02:03 GMT-4


Minutes formatted by Schreiber, a collection of XSLT stylesheets by Bob Freund modeled after David Booth's scribe

Schreiber diagnostics output

[Delete this section before publishing the minutes]

final validation: Title not specified, default title 'OASIS SCA-Assembly TC...' was assumed

final validation: Chair not specified, default chair was assumed

statistics: Schreiber found 116 input lines

edits: Schreiber found the following text-edit commands:

edits: Line 26: s/is yes/if yes/

edits: Line 90: s/mean/meant/

command-scribe: Line 14: Since the line number is less than or equal to 20 we will interpret this as a scribename command, note that the scribe command is deprecated

command-scribe: Line 14: Scribe 'Eric Wells' is recognized by use of the nick 'EricW'

command-scribe: Line 14: EricW's nick 'EricW' has been selected

edit-substitute: command on line 26 succeeded, changed line 24 from 'is yes' to 'if yes'

edit-delete: Line 26 was deleted

edit-substitute: command on line 90 succeeded, changed line 89 from 'mean' to 'meant'

edit-delete: Line 90 was deleted

citation-detection-scribed: Line 165: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'Vote'

command-autoroll/oasis: Line 203: Attempting to fetch roll from http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/event.php?event_id=25009

command-autoroll/oasis: Line 203: Successfully fetched roll from http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/event.php?event_id=25009

citation-detection-scribed: Line 204: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'COB 10'

system: Transformer: SAXON 9.1.0.7

[End of Schreiber diagnostic output]


smime.p7s



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]