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

["Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
>Sent: 21 September 2004 09:04
>To: Doug Bunting; Furniss, Peter
>Cc: Martin Chapman; Newcomer, Eric; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [ws-caf] ws-caf draft minutes
>
>
>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)".

The removal of "and protocols" was successfully passed. So lets just
record after "Jeff: seconds"  
that the amendment was passed.


>>
>> 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
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>
>