Re: [ws-caf] ws-caf draft minutes

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

If we can reach agreement on this I'll amend the document.

Mark.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Bunting" <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
To: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
Cc: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>; "Newcomer, Eric"
<Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>; <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] ws-caf draft minutes


> All,
>
> I had thought the discussion around the conformance clause was amended
> twice (not once).  In particular, I believe my second proposal (deleting
> "and protocols" from paragraph 4 as it was numbered in Greg's email) was
> successful; it passed without objection.  Certainly, as shown below, my
> last proposal (distinction between implementations that must implement and
> those that just use) failed.
>
> All together, we need some text between "Jeff: seconds" and the following
> discussion describing the fate of that separate proposal.  The "(once)"
> near the end of the snippet below should read "(twice)".
>
> thanx,
> doug
>
> On 13-Sep-04 09:20, Furniss, Peter wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >     Doug: in the light of the discussion, proposes deleting para 3
> >     2nded: Eric
> >
> >     Jeff: what was the intent ? the words don't quite capture it - what
> > would we lose
> >     by deletion
> >
> >     Greg: intent was to disallow meaningless garbage, but perhaps that's
> > not quite
> >     a conformance claim.  Have to use identifiable addressing schemes
> > (long discussion
> >     on this in section 2)
> >
> >     This is generally covered in section 2
> >
> >     Martin: any objections:  none,
> >      amendment passes
> >
> >     Doug: on (original) para 4: what exactly is a protocol in "systems
> > and protocols" -
> >     should that be "systems and referencing specification".
> >
> >     anyone can do anything with the pass-by-reference must implement the
> > ctx mgr, which is
> >     too strong
> >
> >     Jeff: but a ref spec isn't an implementation
> >
> >     Tony: in another forum, they distinguished implementations
> > conforming and specifications
> >     complying
> >
> >     Peter: that was a bit silly really
> >
> >     Doug: questions his own amendment !
> >       clarifies : delete  "and protocols" from para 4
> >       Jeff: seconds
> >
> >     Doug: that paragraph now says pass-by-reference use means must
implement
> >     the context mgr, but really it only needs to support either offering
> > the
> >     service or interacting with it.
> >
> >     Martin: only the thing passing out the context needs to implement
> > the mgr service
> >
> >     Doug: wishes to clarify the distinction between implementations that
> > must
> >     implement and those that just use
> >     Proposes text to that effect, Peter seconds
> >
> >     Peter: the text would appear to say any system using pass-by-ref
> > must offer the Ctx mgr
> >     service, though it clearly doesn't need to
> >
> >     general disagreement that it could be so interpreted
> >
> >
> >     Voice vote: 6 for , 8 against, 1 abstain
> >        amendment fails
> >
> >     The main motion was taken, as amended (once) -
> >
> >        Passed, no objections
>
> ...
>
>