[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Draft teleconf minutes for 18 August 2005
On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Tom Rutt wrote: > Gilbert Pilz wrote: > >> I use VOIP to participate in the concalls. A quick google shows me >> that >> there are a number of different ways I could record our calls (either >> using a VOIP client that supports recording or a plug-in that taps >> into >> my systems audio stream). If I can set this up, would the group allow >> me >> to record our concalls? >> >> > would you be able to post the recording as an mp3 or other stream type > to the meeting documents site (with member only access)? while it might be nice to have a recording, i don't think its a substitute for minutes -- it takes 2-5 minutes to read the minutes/notes and 90 minutes to listen to a recording/podcast. - jeff > >> - g >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, >>> 2005 8:53 AM >>> To: Lei Jin >>> Cc: Jonathan Marsh; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Draft teleconf minutes for 18 August 2005 >>> >>> Lei Jin wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Recording the whole call is great for keeping records, but >>> not so good >>>> if people just want to find out quickly what happened in this call. >>>> Perhaps we can have someone go through the recorded call and >>> produce an >>>> accurate summary/minutes of the meeting. >>>> >>>> >>> To record a telephone call (while also alowing the phone which is >>> doing the recording to participate in the call) requires special >>> equipment. This costs about 150 dollars for the proper equipment >>> for this job. >>> >>> I have thought about having a recording as a backup, for when such >>> discrepancies are found between different people's memories of the >>> event. >>> >>> However, minute takers can record the important happenings, leaving >>> some of the "not so relevant" details out. I do not see a recording >>> as taking the place of minutes. >>> >>> Tom Rutt >>> >>> >>>> Lei >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] >>>>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 1:47 PM >>>>> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Draft teleconf minutes for 18 August 2005 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cool, then we could relive the whole call in real time! That >>>>> would certainly keep comments and corrections to a minimum... ;-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 1:59 PM >>>>>> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>>> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Draft teleconf minutes for 18 August 2005 >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 to recording the minutes. Writing them down, especially on a >>>>>> concall >>>>>> where you can't actually see who is talking, is pretty >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> painfull. If we >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> recorded the minutes we could pretend to be hip podcasters and >>>>>> all that . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> - g >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Abbie Barbir [mailto:abbieb@nortel.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 7:53 AM >>>>>>> To: Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Draft teleconf minutes for 18 August 2005 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Basically, person X should be able to ensure that the minutes >>>>>>> reflect what he/she said. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, you can solve all the problems by having the minutes >>>>>>> recorded. This also solves the problem of appointing a scribe. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Abbie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 10:22 AM >>>>>>>> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Draft teleconf minutes for 18 August 2005 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ultimately, it is the TC that has responsibility for >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> approving the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> minutes. If someone requests a change, and the rest of the TC >>>>>>>> disagrees with that change (revisionist history), then IMO >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> it should >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> not be made. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personally, I would tend to give the benefit of the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> doubt to the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> person to whom scribed notes are attributed. Thus far, I >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> haven't seen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> any changes requested that are inconsistent with my recollection >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> what was said on the call. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As long as the requested changes are recorded on the email >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> list, that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> should be more than adequate as a record of what was >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> changed. If >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> someone chooses to take exception to a requested change, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> they should >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> do so on the list so that it can be discussed and reconciled in >>>>>>>> accordance to the TC's wishes during the approval of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> the minutes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe we should all be prefacing our spoken points during a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> meeting >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> with: >>>>>>>> "permission >>>>>>>> to revise and extend my remarks for the record?" :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Christopher Ferris >>>>>>>> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture >>>>>>>> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com >>>>>>>> blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html >>>>>>>> phone: +1 508 377 9295 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Abbie Barbir" <abbieb@nortel.com> wrote on 08/19/2005 09:55:06 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> AM: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ashok, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> History (views, reasons, etc..) changes(or can be >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> rewritten) (it >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> depends on who is recording it, have you read history books >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in other >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> countries. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Having an amendment as you describe means whatever the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> scirbe misheard >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> or misrecoreded will be documented regardless of what X has >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> stated on >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the call, which should not be the case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Abbie >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 9:36 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: Paul Cotton; Gilbert Pilz >>>>>>>>>> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Draft teleconf minutes for 18 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> August 2005 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Changing minutes can come close to rewriting >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> history. In this >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> case, it is possible that the scribe misheard or >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> misrecorded >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Paul's words but, in the general case, someone can assert a >>>>>>>>>> different position to what was taken on the telcon. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I recommend, therefore, that the minutes not be >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> changed but an >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> amendment record be added saying "X has requested the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> following >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> changes to the minutes ...". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All the best, Ashok >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: Paul Cotton [mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com] >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 5:12 AM >>>>>>>>>>> To: Gilbert Pilz >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Draft teleconf minutes for 18 August >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> 2005 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for taking the minutes. Here are some >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> proposed changes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Paul: David spoke directly about some discussions >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> that took >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> place during (prior?) the forming of the charter. I >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wouldn't have >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> permitted this (missed some of this) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please replace this with: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul: David spoke directly about some discussions >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> that took >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> place >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> prior to the formation of the TC. I want to make it >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> clear that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft never would have suggested that the charter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> could be >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> changed since this is known to be against OASIS rules. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. >Paul: I'm going to vote against this. It will >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> divert the TCs >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> resources into a non-normative, non-exhaustive doc who's >>>>>>>>>>> applicability to the work of the TC is unclear. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please replace this with what I put into the Chat >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> dialogue and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> which I read out: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Paul: I am going to vote against this proposal since it >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> recommends the >>>>>>>>>>> TC work on a non-normative, undecided scope, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> non-exhaustive >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> non-deliverable. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3. >Paul: I won't disagree with you. I take it you are >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> referring >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> to XQuery? That effort started with a blank slate. This >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TC started >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> with completed specs as well as interop scenarios. I >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> think this >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> effort is beyond the need for use cases. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please replace this with the following (I never used the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> word >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "completed"): >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Paul: I won't disagree with you. I take it you are >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> referring to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> XQuery? That effort started with a blank slate. This >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> TC started >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> with well-defined contributed specs as well as interop >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> scenarios. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think this effort is beyond the need for use cases. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 4. >Paul: That would be the URI for the RDL document? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (yes). The >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> RDL document would point you at the schema file? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Change "RDL" to "RDDL" everywhere it occurs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /paulc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada >>>>>>>>>>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 >>>>>>>>>>> Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 >>>>>>>>>>> mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: August 18, 2005 8:40 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [ws-rx] Draft teleconf minutes for 18 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> August 2005 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Attached is the draft of the minutes. Please >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> notify if you >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> feel there >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> anything missing or incorrect and I'll fix it before I >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> upload this >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> document (probably on Monday). I'm sorry for the parts >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> simply say >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (back and forth) but when everyone talks at once it is >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> very hard to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> catch what is being said. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - g >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>> Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com >>> Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > > > -- Jeff Mischkinsky jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com Director, Web Services Standards +1(650)506-1975 Consulting Member Technical Staff 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP9 Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]