RE: [ws-caf] Draft Minutes Confcall 21/6

["Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>]

Peter,

I think the current draft reflects the resolution of issues discussed and voted on in telecons and face to face meetings, as mentioned during the call yesterday.

We are happy to recieve any new issues through July 2 and process them at the face to face, again as agreed during yesterday's call.

I do not wish, however, to entertain discussions on issues that have been previously voted on and closed, or to discuss yet again issues that have already been previously and thoroughly discussed.

While I understand that eveyone isn't able to attend every meeting, and that sometimes votes do not result in decisions to everyone's liking, it's also very important that the results of each meeting are allowed to stand and that we as a TC accept the results of official meetings and move on.

Thanks,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 5:18 AM
To: Furniss, Peter; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Draft Minutes Confcall 21/6


Peter, apologies because I thought we'd discussed anything relevant to the
1.0 version of the specification.

I'm also happy to have a telecon. on the 5th. In fact I thought we'd agreed
that yesterday?

Mark.

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

www.arjuna.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
To: <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 2:40 AM
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Draft Minutes Confcall 21/6


> 1. There are a number of fairly significant issues outstanding on
ws-context, for which there has been little discussion since the issues were
singled out (apart from some input from Alastair).  When are these going to
be discussed.
>
> 2.  Draft 0.3 is substantially different (and much better) but clearly
(from these minutes), people haven't had time to digest it and its
implications yet. If we are to produce a standard of quality, it doesn't
seem to be a good move to set a closing date for issues less than 2 weeks
from now. I strongly agree that standards need to be timely as well as
correct (indeed, I have an aphorism that the date on a standard should be
treated as a technical issue - a late 'perfect' standard is of lower quality
than a timely, reasonably good one), but on the other hand we shouldn't let
ourselves be enslaved by a timetable - which like all such, was very
optomistic.
>
> 3. The habit of this group has been to have TC meetings even if the day in
question is a public holiday for several participants, but not for all. :-).
Is there a meeting on 5th July ?
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guy Pardon [mailto:guy@atomikos.com]
> Sent: Mon 6/21/2004 5:25 PM
> To: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc:
> Subject: [ws-caf] Draft Minutes Confcall 21/6
>
>
> Below is the draft for the minutes. As soon as I get the roll call I will
insert that information...
>
> Guy
>
> WS-CAF Phone Conference, June 21, 2004
>
> 1. Roll call: no quorum at beginning of meeting (only later).
>
> 2. Assign scribe: volunteer Guy Pardon
>
> 3. ACTION: Implementation group:
> -Planning tests this week or next one (interop tests between Oracle and
Arjuna).
> -A port number will be published so everyone interested can participate in
the tests.
>
> 4. General discussion:
>
> -Should next confcall proceed as normal? (July 5th is holiday in US). The
next F2F is July 12th and should close the CTX part with a demo.
>
> (Martin joins, so there is a quorum now)
>
> 5. Agenda review:
>
> -Minutes approval
> -Review the specs and
> -Discuss the logistics for F2F.
> -Any more outstanding action items? No.
>
> 6. Minutes:
>
> -Outstanding minutes from previous meetings? Appears not to be the case.
Can always be deferred if there are any.
>
> 8. Review of spec draft
>
> -Any comments on last draft 0.3?
> -Guy: still didn't see any answers to the questions I posted (how is an
active subcontext set to FAIL_ONLY)?
> Mark: this and the termination status were removed in F2F in New Orleans.
> -Martin: Activity def seems to be more of an introductory topic than
deserving its own chapter.
> -Doug: agreed, because Activity is the first concept that needs to be
introduced. It supports the notion of context.
>
> (Simeon joins meeting)
> (Some discussion: there were people who couldn't get on the call. Were
they using the right numbers? An email will be sent to the group.)
>
> -Tony: didn't get a chance to read the specs yet. We might come back to
this later on the next call, since then also other people will be able to
attend.
> -Some background on the 0.3 draft motivation:
> -try to resolve some issues from the F2F in New Orleans
> -combined Activity and CTX service
> -clarify whether there is one or more contexts per activity and so on
> -Mark: the major change is ALS removal, pushing everything to the back.
>
> -Bryan Murray: Section 5: there is no indication of what the message looks
like. How does someone determine the right XML format?
> The WSDL is also non-prescriptive on this. For instance, the begin
message:
> how can one determine this from the spec if the WSDL and Schema aren't
normative?
> Answer from Mark: the WSDL and schema are (should be) normative!
>
> -This spec should be closed at the F2F. Are there any things to settle in
between?
> There should be a deadline for comments and issues. Is no later than July
2nd OK?
> (No objections.)
>
> 9. Next confcall
> -Do we need the next confcall on the 5th? It wouldn't harm to summarize
during that confcall, so let's keep it.
>
> 10. Anything about the F2F plans or logistics?
>
> -Martin: I will post logistic info.
> -The first 2 days are in the conference center (12,13) and the 14th is in
one of the meeting rooms.
> -The agenda will be worked out in more detail by the end of the week.
> -Major goals are closing the spec and doing the interop demo.
> -Another major item: getting started on the next spec.
> -ACTION point for everyone: read the next (CF) spec draft so we can start
that discussion on the F2F!
> -Another point is to review the timetable for the rest of this TC work.
>
> (Simeon: is it Alex who is going to publish an end-point? No, Malik.)
>
> Any other things to discuss?
>
> No. Meeting adjourned. Next call is on the 5th.
>
>
>
>
>
>