Minutes
Opening
Martinis
<gilbert.pilz>
"Multiple Martins" is a great band name
<MartinC1>
i prefer multiple martinis
<Mike Edwards>
+1 to Martinis
<Mike Edwards>
Martinis all round...
make mine a hendricks bone dry cold not shaken with a slice of cucumber
Roll - quorate with 19 of 21 voting members present
Resolution: Minutes of 2010-04-27 accepted w/o
Action Items
Action: id=2010-03-02-3 status=pending owner="MikeE" Improve test Suite SPI to address other issues raised by JimM
TC Administrivia
Second public review complete with one comment
New Issues
Karmarkar introduces his new issue
Resolution: m:Karmarkar s:Malhotra New issue Assembly-229 opened w/o
Resolution: m:Karmarkar s:Malhotra Assembly-229 resolved with the proposal in Jira w/o
Edwards introduces the new issue
Resolution: m:Karmarkar s:Aupperle Assembly-230 opened w/o
Resolution: m:Booz s:Karmarkar Assembly-230 resolved as proposed in Jira w/o
discussion in email as pointed to in the Agenda
<Mike Edwards>
My suggestion about Appendixes is in here:
<Sanjay>
I think deciding which release to address the issues (1.1 vs 1.2) should be based on the effort estimation, which is better
done by at least letting the authors of the documents present them to the TC, which means we should first reopen the issues
against 1.1. Just my 2cents.
<Sanjay>
there is a lot of echo
<Sanjay>
Postponement of eventing to 1.2 is exactly for the same reason, imho - define a good quality and useful spec , let the spec
play out there and give the standard some more time and testing by the market to add more requirements e.g eventing.
<Sanjay>
we had eventing issue opened against 1.1 and resolved as 'defered to 1.2'
<MartinC1>
if its a new deliverable we can raise issues against that
<Sanjay>
that is different than opening issues against 1.2
<Sanjay>
Martin, are you speaking as a chair or a member? just curious.
<Dave Booz>
there is a difference between some implementation type extension conforming to assembly vs. claiming itself as a standard
implementation type
Motion: m:Freund Begin the production of a new deliverable that describes requirements for all implementation types. Publication of
this document may occur concurrent with 1.1 or following final publication of 1.1 to be determined based on its progress relative
to 1.1. Close action on the public comment with this resolution.
<Philipp Konradi>
Right, good point Dave. We are primarily speaking here about conformance of other implementation types to assembly, not about
them being standards
<Sanjay>
doesn't adding new deliverable require rechartering?
<jeff.mischkinsky>
dave: but practically it is the same in this case, as you would be claiming conformance to sca by virtue of not having a
opencsa impl language
Motion: m:Freund s:Mischkinsky Begin the production of a new deliverable that describes requirements for all implementation types.
Publication of this document may occur concurrent with 1.1 or following final publication of 1.1 to be determined based on
its progress relative to 1.1. Close action on the public comment with this resolution.
<jeff.mischkinsky>
sanjay: no it does not -- as long as the deliverable is in the scope
<jeff.mischkinsky>
TC's can produce and structure their work as they see fit
<Sanjay>
then - whether it is an independent deliverable or not is part of the solution for resolving the issue.
<Dave Booz>
Jeff, no it's not practically the same, that's why we separated all these specs
<jeff.mischkinsky>
we separated these specs to manage the work better -
<Mike Edwards>
Sanjay - I think the existing Charter does actually cover this material
<Dave Booz>
that was a good side effect
<Sanjay>
I don't understand the motion too - how can we close the issue if we are undertaking some new work (as a separate deliverable
or otherwisef)!
<jeff.mischkinsky>
the issue is closed
<jeff.mischkinsky>
it is not open
<jeff.mischkinsky>
we have been debating opening something that is closed -
<Sanjay>
This item is under agenda item 5 (New Issues)
<jeff.mischkinsky>
there is no motion to reopen the issue
<anish>
time check: 5 mins
<Sanjay>
does Bob's motion require 2/3rd majority?
<MartinC1>
simple majority sisnce we are not re-opening
<Jeff Estefan>
Bob's motion suggests "Begin the production ..." when in fact a draft production has already been produced. Yes it needs
update.
<Philipp Konradi>
I don't see what's the problem with claiming conformance to sca assembly by virtue of not having a opencsa impl language?
SCA assembly model is language independent, right?
<anish>
phillipp, assembly is language independent, but assembly IMHO has to say what features a C&I must implement
<Sanjay>
can the chairs clarify the procedure of calling the question a little bit
<Sanjay>
I can see that there is some confusion about what is going on here.
<Philipp Konradi>
I think we should even go that direction and enable and foster adoption of SCA assembly by further implementation technologies
(Domain specific languages, proprietary ones, new acadamic ones, ...)
<Mike Edwards>
132 & 149 are closed - Bob's motion is something new that is an alternative way to address the same problem area
Resolution: m:Freund s:Mischkinsky Begin the production of a new deliverable that describes requirements for all implementation types.
Publication of this document may occur concurrent with 1.1 or following final publication of 1.1 to be determined based on
its progress relative to 1.1. Close action on the public comment with this resolution. Approved 15 yes to 1 no
AOB
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 78 input lines
edits: Schreiber found the following text-edit commands:
edits: Line 4: s/1./agenda: 1.
edits: Line 14: i/Multiple/topic: Martinis
edits: Line 73: s/out there/, let the spec play out there/
edit-substitute: command on line 4 succeeded, changed line 1 from '1.' to 'agenda: 1.'
command-scribe: Line 3: 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 3: Bob Freund is recognized
command-scribe: Line 3: Bob Freund's nick Bob has been selected
edit-delete: Line 4 was deleted
edit-insert: i/ command line 5.1 inserted before source line
edit-delete: Line 14 was deleted
edit-substitute: command on line 73 succeeded, changed line 72 from 'out there' to ', let the spec play out there'
edit-delete: Line 73 was deleted
command-autoroll/oasis: Line 133: Attempting to fetch roll from http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/event.php?event_id=25377
command-autoroll/oasis: Line 133: Successfully fetched roll from http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-assembly/event.php?event_id=25377
system: Transformer: SAXON 9.2.0.6
[End of Schreiber diagnostic output]