Minutes
Opening
<Mike Edwards>
can you talk to us Eric ??
EricW:
Mike the telephone is on hold music
<Mike Edwards>
what # did you use Eric?
<Mike Edwards>
everyone else is already in the call
<Mike Edwards>
old number - yes
<anish>
USA Toll-Free 888-426-6840 Caller Paid 215-861-6239
Roll call 14/17 = 82% - Quorate
Approval of minutes for 2011-05 10
No discussion, no objections
Resolution: Minutes of 2011-05-10 approved w/o
Action Items
Action: id=2010-09-22-8 status=pending owner="EricJ" produce new proposal for ASSEMBLY-227
Action: id=2011-01-04-2 status=pending Edwards to write a new proposal for the resolution of Assembly-246 along the lines contained
in wsra
Administrivia
MikeK:
Only 2 allowed per year
Exit Criteria
MikeE:
Still need to determine Exit Criteria
No proposals - No discussion
Updated 1.1 Assembly Specification - consider for CSD & PR
MikeE:
Summarizes situation - ASSEMBLY-262 raised to add links
BryanA:
Noted there's no linkage to Test Suite in the spec
BryanA:
Java & Bindings TC have added section to spec to describe Test Suite and provide non-normative links
Motion: Open ASSEMBLY-262 m=BryanA s=Anishk
No discussion, no objections
Resolution: ASSEMBLY-262 opened w/o
JeffM:
Important to note versions to which spec and Test Suite apply/reference
AnishK:
Can this be done via errata?
Errata only applies to non-normative text
MartinC:
Can "this version", "latest version" links be used?
<MartinC>
latest version is the fixed url
MikeE:
Have more or less copied what other TC's have done
<jeff.mischkinsky>
not stealing :-)
...Notes OASIS has specific rules about references to OASIS specs
JeffM:
This is a 2-way dependency - how is that going to work?
Discussion on how revs to spec & Test Suite work
MartinC:
Always problems with revising independent docs' - this works same way as code revs
...probably the best way to do this
AnishK:
Changes to Test Suite (bug fix) more frequent than spec - do these have to be full revs or errata?
JeffM:
Have to be revs - errata only allows very restrictive changes
AnishK:
In that case how do we handle actual errata?
<jeff.mischkinsky>
yes, he says with fingers crossed behind his back :-)
Discussion of how errata is handled and need to fold into spec
<Mike Edwards>
So Martin want to see this as a reference:
MartinC:
Would like links to reference latest version rather than specific version
DannyV:
Do people have to always run latest version for compliance?
MartinC:
Any approved version of Test Suite can be used to claim conformance
DannyV argues against "latest version" links - wants specific version to avoid interoperabilty issues
MartinC:
Then we have to rev spec each time Test Suite is changed
Discussion of conformance claims in "real world" using different version of Test Suite
<jeff.mischkinsky>
move - resolve with proposal that is in jira (262) with the link being the latest
<jeff.mischkinsky>
the "latest URL"
Motion: Resolve ASSEMBLY-262 with proposal in JIRA modified to use "latest version" URLs (as in chat room) m=JeffM s=BryanA
No further discussion, no objetions
<jeff.mischkinsky>
or even objections
Resolution: Resolve ASSEMBLY-262 with proposal in JIRA modified to use "latest version" URLs (as in chat room) w/o
MikeE:
Need to get this to CSD and PR
...will produce new doc now - will be WD 074
BryanA:
Previous Exit Criteria discussion assumed no other changes to spec?
AnishK:
Not entirely - depends on how it gets resolved
...Exit Criteria will probably be non-normative and so not need another rev of the spec
MikeE:
Anyone care to motion to accept new doc & propose PR
AnishK:
TC Adim now needs actual URL to doc for approval motions
EricW:
I can delay producing minutes until doc exists :-)
<Bryan Aupperle>
From a note from a TC admin on 21 March: #2 May a TC approve an imaginary/nonexistent WD as CSD/CND?
==============================================================
The occasional allowance made by TC Admin in the past for
approval of a Working Draft "subject to certain changes..."
is being discontinued, primarily for resourcing reasons.
TC Admin does not have time to verify that ONLY certain
kinds/classes of changes, or changes consistent with a
certain stated goal, or ONLY certain enumerated changes,
have actually been made in a Working Draft that's approved
for CD. This practice is judged procedurally suspect, and has
created numerous problems due to ambiguity, demonstrable
lack of adherence to limited specified changes, and other
consequences.
Until further notice, motions to approve a WD as CSD/CND
must be made with reference to an existing, published
Working Draft release -- one that actually exists at the
date/time of the motion, as clarified in the TC Handbook.
[2]
Motion: Accept WD074 as CSD08 of SCA Assembly 1.1 spec and publish for 15 day Public review m=BryanA s=MikeK
Minor error in doc - needs fixing before approval
Out of time - motion dies
AOB
Straggler roll - DannyV EricJ JimM
Schreiber diagnostics output
[Delete this section before publishing the minutes]
final validation: Date not specified, the date '2011-05-17' was assumed
final validation: Title not specified, default title 'Oasis SCA-Assembly Teleconference...' was assumed
final validation: Chair not specified, default chair was assumed
statistics: Schreiber found 97 input lines
edits: Schreiber found the following text-edit commands:
edits: Line 95: s/rev 074/WD 074/
edits: Line 100: s/delya/delay/
command-scribe: Line 6: Scribe 'Eric Wells' is recognized by use of the nick 'EricW'
command-scribe: Line 6: EricW's nick 'EricW' has been selected
edit-substitute: command on line 95 succeeded, changed line 91 from 'rev 074' to 'WD 074'
edit-delete: Line 95 was deleted
edit-substitute: command on line 100 succeeded, changed line 99 from 'delya' to 'delay'
edit-delete: Line 100 was deleted
citation-detection-scribed: Line 110: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'COB 9'
system: Transformer: SAXON 9.2.1.2
[End of Schreiber diagnostic output]