minutes of the first teleconference

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

As promised, here are my minutes from the first teleconference. Send
corrections to me directly and I'll then upload the final version on which
we can vote at the next teleconference.

Mark.

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

www.arjuna.com
Welcome and roll-call by the convenor (Mark Little).

Present:

Peter	Furniss
Joseph	Chiusano
Thomas	Rischbeck
Arnaud	Simon
Robert	Haugen
Greg	Pavlik
Guy	Pardon
Eric	Yuan
Tony	Fletcher
Stuart	Wheater
Mark	Little
Doug	Bunting
Martin	Chapman
jeff	mischkinsky
Eric	Newcomer
Pete	Wenzel
David	Ingham
Malik	Saheb
Alastair Green
Peter	Cousins
Jean-Jacques Dubray
Ben	Bloch
Simeon	Greene
Paul	Trieloss

The  election  to the  chair  of  the TC  was  then  conducted by  the
convenor.   The   proposed   co-chairs   were  Eric   Newcomer   (IONA
Technologies)  and  Martin  Chapman  (Oracle).  No other members
expressed an interest in the chair position and there were no
objections to the proposed co-chairs. As a result, the election was
passed.

Mark then turned over the meeting to James Bryce Clark from OASIS, who
gave an overview of the OASIS rules and regulations.

Eric Newcomer thanked James and proceeded to the next item on the
agenda: reviewing the charter. He asked if there was anything to
discuss related to the charter?

Martin Chapman suggested going over the deliverables, which Eric did:
revised WS-Context specification in 6 months, WS-CF in 10 months and
WS-TXM in 14 months. Also an updated primer.

James (Bryce  Clark) asked about  the relationship of WS-TXM  to other
work going on  in OASIS, and Eric explained what  TXM does, the models
and how it's important to allow others to be plugged in.

James asked if that functionality was related to WSDM?

Jeff Mischinsky said there wasn't any overlap.

Doug Bunting said that the WSDM people are concerned with the
lifecycle of services and we're concerned with state management.

The meeting then moved on to item 6 in the agenda, where Eric proposed
that email votes and web ballots are allowed. There was some
discussion as to what exactly this means, including exactly why email
should be considered at all.

Martin (Chapman) suggested  that the Kavi system is  subject to denial
of service attacks and may be unavailable when votes are required.

James said that Kavi isn't down too long (longest time is 5 days). By
using Kavi for votes we remove the "pop quiz" possibility and give
people a good voting period.

Eric suggested that motions could be made by email and the actual
voting taken care of by Kavi.

Pete (Wenzel?) said that motions can only be made at official
meetings.

Jamie said that under OASIS rules, anybody can launch a motion by
email. It may not be good practice, but it is legal.

Jeff (Mischinsky) objected to email ballots and proposals of motions
by email. Martin agreed.

Eric then asked for clarification of exactly what the new motion
should be, to which Jeff responded that Kavi should be the only route
for voting within the TC.

Pete (Wenzel?) seconded the motion.

Eric asked if there was any further discussion or objections. Hearing
none, the motion was carried.

Jamie raised the point that the TC can permit chairs to launch
administrative ballots without needing a meeting or motion. But the TC
needs to empower them to do so.

Jeff said that since the chairs call the meeting, why do we need to do
this?

Eric then asked if there were any other standing rules that people
wanted to raise.

Martin clarified  the second motion that was  originally proposed, but
which was  found to be illegal  under OASIS rules:  late attendees are
allowed to vote but only on subjects that they were present for (we're
looking for clarification on whether this is OK under OASIS
rules). Essentially the big change was on the roll call and when are
you counted as being present? The current rules state that the roll
call must be at the start of the meeting and you must be present for
it. Late arrivals are not attendees, even if they miss the call by a
minute. Hence the second motion. The reason it was deemed out of order
was that it would require widening the OASIS rules and not narrowing
them.

Jeff the alternative motion is that we challenge OASIS to change the
rules to allow people to be late arrivals.

Martin agreed and asked for a second.

Pete (Wenzel) seconded.

Eric asked whether challege was the right word, and Jeff said that it
should be "request them to change".

Jeff summarised the motion "that this TC requests that the OASIS Board
of Directors allow people to be counted in good standing if they turn
up to any part of a meeting."

There was then a discussion about why this was needed at all. People
should turn up on time!

Eric eventually called the discussion to a close and asked if there
were any objections to the motion as proposed. Hearing none it was passed.

The meeting then moved on the item 7 in the agenda: the issues
process. It was proposed that we adopt the same procedures that the
OASIS WS-BPEL TC are using.

Jeff asked if Peter Furniss would summarise the process since he's
been running it for BPEL and to send a document to the list.

Peter Furniss said  that the current process requires  a lot of effort
to keep alive. Too much effort for  him to commit to doing it for this
TC. However,  Jeff pointed  out that  at this stage  we only  wanted a
summary and were not looking for a maintainer.

Peter (Furniss) summarised the process as people send issues to the
like where they are assigned a number. Each issue has a champion whose
role it is to see the issue through to completion. There are bi-weekly
votes on issues. The issues document is in the BPEL document
repository.

Eric asked Peter if he thought the process was good. Peter said that
it was, and it's good to have a list and try to reach closure.

Martin pointed out that the issues are only closed by the group as a
whole. The process is only for managing discussions.

Jeff asked  Peter to send out a  link to the process,  since the ideas
are good. His concern is that in  BPEL is depends on Peter and there a
lot of formality  because that group is large. Because  of the size of
this TC we may not need such formalism.

Doug (Bunting) asked Jeff if he was going to write a lightweight
version of the issues process document which would maintain the
original principles. Jeff said he would.

Eric then submitted the original 4 WS-CAF specifications to the group
on behalf of the WS-CAF consortium. These specifications were
submitted royalty free.

Pete asked if the process required that we vote to accept these
documents, but Jamie said that it didn't.

Jeff proposed a motion that we accept the documents as the base line
for going forward. This was seconded by Mark Little.

Jamie said that there wasn't anything wrong with this, but it's
obviously not binding in going forward.

Doug asked for clarification about which documents were being
submitted and Jeff said that they were the 1.0 specifications as
currently available on the OASIS web site and on the individual
company sites.

Eric asked if there was any further discussion or objection. Hearing
none, the motion was passed.

The   meeting  then   concluded  with   a  discussion   of   the  next
teleconference and the first  face-to-face. It had been suggested that
the teleconferences should be every other week at 8am PST for 90
minutes. This would be the week after the WS-BPEL
teleconferences. However, it turns out that this overlaps with some of
the WS-BPEL subgroup meetings.

Tony Fletcher suggested Fridays, but Martin (and several others
judging by the groans) said that this wasn't optimal.

Eric and Martin suggested that the next teleconference witll be at 8am
PST on the 21st of November and then we'll discuss the issue
again. The first face-to-face will be hosted by IONA Technologies on
the 3rd and 4th of December at their Waltham offices.