Re: Fw: [wsbpel-reqts] Groups - Issues coordination call - agendaadded modified

["Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

I apologize for not making the call but I had the meeting set in my 
calendar for an hour later than it actually was.

As for 91, 97 & 99, I suspect we should first vote on 107 because if 107 
is voted in then 91/97/99 are voted out by default.

		Yaron

Diane Jordan wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> Monica Martin, Tom Freund and I were on the call today.   Notes on the 
> discussion:
>  
> - how to handle issues from non-members
> we'd like to be able to accept these - the suggestion was that when we 
> get such issues, we put them in a "pending" state and at the next TC 
> meeting ask if there is any objection to opening them.  We might also 
> want to ask for a "sponsor" to submit it formally.  We can cover this at 
> the next meeting to make sure everyone is ok with it.
> - agenda for next call:
> proposals to vote on: issue 37, 91, 97, 99, 101
> - Would like to talk about how to tackle the issues related to 91,97 and 
> 99 (107, 82 and 109) so we can move forward on these.  
> Since Yaron didn't make the call, we weren't able to delve into the 
> 91,97, 99 dependency tree.  The discussion on 107 at the last call 
> didn't seem to be moving very directly toward a resolution.  
> Yaron - any comments?
> 
> discussion of issue 34
> We discussed whether it would be appropriate to formulate a proposal to 
> vote at this point and to what extent the alternatives should be 
> included in it.  Monica will prepare one that focuses on stating the 
> bpel requirements vs calling out the WS-Addressing spec.  I asked that 
> the alternative discussion include some thinking on deferring action on 
> this till we are closer to finalizing the spec so that whatever we 
> decide to do is based on the most current status.  
> Monica mentioned that she may not be able to participate on the call 
> next week - she'll let me know by Friday if this should be deferred to 
> the following tc call.  
> 
> - any updates on action items agreed to in f2f for:  75, 83, 108,11, 103.  
> We didn't talk about this but I'd like to go through these action items 
> and ask for status on the TC call next week.  Let me know if you have 
> any concerns with this.  
>  
> - start list of possibilities for handling votes at next f2f (assuming 
> we may not have quorum)
> I'm putting together a list of things we might do to avoid the problems 
> with voting we had last time and will circulate it first to this group 
> and then the full TC before the next f2f.  Monica suggested we specify 
> times for people to call in to vote.  I suggested that we might want to 
> align those times with the roll call.
>  
> I noted that we have been strictly enforcing the rule that if you miss 
> two out of three meetings, you get a warning and if you miss the next 
> one you get changed to observer.  Since we haven't had trouble in 
> general getting to quorum (only at f2f's) we have not been strictly 
> enforcing the part about the chair having discretion to change people 
> who have a pattern of consistently missing 2 out of 3, however we do 
> remind people to consider switching to observer if this is the case and 
> many have.  
>  
> - discuss vote on dates for next f2f.  After the last call, I was told 
> that WfMC is meeting in SF on June 21-23 (1pm) thus ovelapping the plans 
> we adopted to hold our meeting June 22 through noon June 24 (tues, wed, 
> thurs).    
> I'll mention this at the next tc call and ask if there is interest in 
> reconsidering our vote and moving the dates of our meeting to all day 
> June 23 and 24 and half day June 25 (Wed, thurs and fri).