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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bpel message

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

Subject: Raw minutes 2008-05-22

[8:06] anish: Scibe: Danny
[8:06] anish: scribeNice: Danny
[8:06] anish: Scribe: Danny
[8:06] anish: ScribeNick: Danny
[8:08] Danny: Waiting for quorum.  Agenda pre-bashed.
[8:09] Danny: Topic AI#21: Sanjay will followup
[8:09] Danny: Topic:  Issue 16.
[8:10] Danny: Still waiting for proposal from Dieter
[8:10] Danny: Topic: JIRA Status
[8:10] Danny: 3 issues have been updated but not resolved.  Michael not on call
[8:10] Danny: Topic:  Status of spec.
[8:11] Danny: Dieter not on call.  Status of resolved issues not known.
[8:11] Danny: Action: Najeeb to take action to coordinate editors to reflect updated issues
[8:12] Danny: Topic:  Issue 15 
[8:12] Danny: Discussion ran out of time last week
[8:13] Danny: But we're not quorate right now
[8:16] Mike Edwards: I am on the call now if that helps
[8:16] Danny: We are now quorate
[8:17] Danny: Topic:  Approval of minutes
[8:17] Danny: Updated minutes have been sent including the roll.  Sent out yesterday.
[8:17] Danny: Motion:  Approve minutes of May 15, 2008
[8:18] Danny: Approved unanimoulsy
[8:18] Danny: s/unanimoulsy/unanimously/
[8:18] Danny: Topic:  Issue 15
[8:26] Danny: Motion:  Adopt conformance targets identified in http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200803/msg00000.html
[8:26] Danny: motion made by Martin Chapman, 2nd from Mike Edwards
[8:26] Danny: Motion approved unanimously
[8:27] Danny: Martin: Motion resolves and closes issue 15
[8:28] Danny: Martin:  No editing needed, this is just language to use when using RFC 2119 language
[8:29] Danny: Motion: Martine moves to resolve issue 15 and instruct editors to insert the definitions from the previous motion
[8:29] Danny: s/Martine/Martin/
[8:30] Danny: 2nd by Mike Edwards
[8:30] Danny: motion approved unanimously
[8:30] Danny: Topic:  Issue 18
[8:31] Danny: Anish: This is something that the editors need to take on and bring back to TC.  No need for TC to debate this open-endedly
[8:32] Danny: Action:  Najeeb to coordinate editors to pick a "meaty" section, rewrite it in RFC 2119, bring back to TC for discussion
[8:33] Danny: s/"meaty"/"chunky"/
[8:33] Mike Edwards: said with feeling, Martin
[8:34] Danny: Topic:  Issue 16
[8:34] Danny: Anish to prod Dieter for a proposal
[8:34] Danny: Topic:  AOB
[8:35] Danny: Mike Edwards:  We should lay down algorithm for determining service or reference (recall discussion from last week)
[8:36] Danny: Mike Edwards:  Need to raise issue
[8:43] Danny: Mike Rowley:  Stating that a static analysis *can* perform the algorithm was assumed to be enough.  Hoping that Mike Edwards would point out inconsistency in that assumption.
[8:43] Danny: Mike Edwards:  It wasn't clear to me when I wrote the code that there weren't other choices.
[8:44] Danny: Mike Edwards:  Then let's put the algorithm (that I used) in the spec
[8:45] Danny: Mike Rowley:  One of the values of leaving it specified abstractly is that it is extensible to BPEL extensions.
[8:45] Danny: Mike Rowley:  e.g. BPEL 4 Subprocesses
[8:45] Danny: Mike Edwards:  Is it testable?
[8:46] Danny: Martin:  I think the algorithm is pretty clear
[8:48] anish i see u michaelR, want to let a little bit of back and forth
[8:49] Danny: Michael Rowley:  I think the issue of testability is an important one.  Would both statements be tested the same way?
[8:50] Danny: Michael Rowley:  Would the introduction of a specific algorithm change the way we test for it?
[8:51] Danny: Anish:  We'll put this on the agenda along with Issue 15
[8:51] Danny: Anish:  Any other business?

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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