minutes of 10th October 2005 teleconference

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

Please check for corrections, as I was typing and holding the phone at 
the same time.

Mark.



1. September 26th Minutes:

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-caf/email/archives/200509/doc00000.doc 


Mark motions to adopt. Greg seconds. No disagreement. Minutes approved.

2. Review Action Items

Action: Editors to update CF spec ahead of the next call.

Mark: done, but no new spec. sent round. Will do so asap.

3. WS-Context status

Matin: The vote on adopting the current specification succeeded, despite 
the two no votes: Alastair and Peter were not elligible to vote, so we 
were quorate for that vote. But obviously we still have an issue. Martin 
then asked the group if the current issue with the spec. is normative or 
substantive? Still no word from Jamie Clarke on this yet.

Greg: asked for clarification on the definitions of normative and 
substantive in this case. Thinks it is editorial.

Martin: which did we say takes precedent - the WSDL or the specification?

Mark: we say that it's the WSDL.

Martin: OK, since the WSDL takes precedent, it's normative.

Greg: shouldn't we wait for a decision from Jamie?

Martin: don't want to keep going back to Jamie. Let's just make the 
change and re-vote.

Greg: let's check with Jamie and go with whatever he suggests?

Martin: fine with that. Are others?

Doug: yes, but what do the OASIS rules say.

Martin: read from the OASIS rules. Hinges on the meaning of the word 
"substantive": if it is substantive, then another 15 day public review 
and subsequent vote are required. If it's a typo then we can make the 
change with what we've already adopted.

Kevin: not sure this is substantive.

Martin: agrees, but we definitely need to hear from Jamie on this.

4. Future of CAF TC

Martin: this may be premature, but WS-TX is starting soon. November 16th 
is the first meeting. What should we do with WS-CAF as a result? Two 
specs. do overlap.

Mark: can we submit these specifications to WS-TX?

Martin: the TC can't (without a charter change), but a member could.

Greg: agree with Mark; we as individuals can participate with WS-TX and 
add the lessons learnt through that, but the documents would be a better 
and concise way of doing this.

Doug: do we need to consider pushing WS-Context to an OASIS standard 
irrespective of WS-CF and WS-TXM?

Mark: yes, we should definitely push WS-Context to a standard.

Martin: do we want to go for OASIS standard? This means we need 3 
different organisations to say that they are using WS-Context.

Mark: that shouldn't be a problem.

There was some discussion about the future of WS-CAF. A strawpoll 
indicated that it may be an idea to get WS-Context to a standard and 
then wait to see what happens with WS-TX. There are things that WS-CAF 
have learnt in WS-CF and WS-TXM that may be out of scope for the new 
WS-TX committee.

AI: TC members to consider what they want to do with this TC now that 
WS-TX has been chartered.

Martin: it would be good to get WS-Context as an OASIS standard and 
WS-CF/WS-ACID to committee draft then we could say we have got them this 
far. Sounds like WS-CF is almost there and WS-ACID should be close too.