[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: prelim minutes of 8/24 teleconf
the prelim minutes are attached. Please provide corrections before Friday. tom Rutt WSRM TC Chair -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133Title: Draft Agenda to WSRM TC Conference Call – May 06, 2003
|
Full Agenda WSRM TC Conference Call – The meeting of the WSRM TC will take place by teleconference
1
Draft
Agenda:
1 Draft Agenda to WSRM TC Conference Call 2 Roll Call 3 Minutes Discussion 3.1 Appointment of Minute Taker 3.2 Approval of previous meeting minutes – 4 Action Item Status Review 5 Discussions of unresolved comments 6 Scheduled Vote for CD (only if all comments are resolved and we are quorate, else we could initiate a Kavi 7 day ballot) 7 Scheduled Votes for further progression (only if CD is voted yes) 7.1 Vote on whether changes from CD .992 are substantive 7.2 Vote to Submit to OASIS for member vote (subject to no vote on 7.1)) 7.3 Vote for second 30 day public review (subject to yes vote on 7.1) 8 Discussion of document progression and future meeting schedule 2
Roll
Call
Attendance:
Meeting is quorate. 3
Minutes
Discussion
3.1 Appointment of Minute TakerTom Rutt will take minutes. Minutes will serve to record issue resolutions. 3.2 Approval of previous meeting minutesThe minutes of the Aug 17 teleconf are posted at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8870/MinutesWSRMTC081704.htm BoB F moved to approve, Alan seconded. No opposition, minutes of Aug 17 approved. 4 Status of Action Items4.1 Action 052503-1 (Tom Rutt) pendingTom took an action item to complete the status column of pre public review issues list, with correct URLs.
4.2 Action 060104-5 (Jacques) PendingAction: Jacques, will propose further edits, on the FAQ for composability. Still open, low priority 4.3 Action 081704-1 (Jacques) CompleteAction: Jacques will post an updated draft by Thursday 8/19. On 8/19 Jacques posted http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8844/WS-Reliability-1085-jdak-b.pdf . On 8/20, Jacques posted another refinement, with new figures provided by Tom Rutt, at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8874/WS-Reliability-1085-jdak-c-figs.sxw . On 8/22 Mark Peel posted an editorial cleanup, at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8879/WS-Reliability-1085-jdak-d-figs.sxw . On 8/23 Doug Bunting posted the output of the editing team, Draft 1.086, at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8909/WS-Reliability-2004-08-23.pdf . 5
Discussion
of Issues and editorial Comments
The following issues list includes items which
have been resolved as of the output of the The
editing team posted draft 1.086 to the server which resolved the editorial
items from the 8/17 minutes,: PDF: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8909/WS-Reliability-2004-08-23.pdf . PDF with changes against 1.085 Open office source: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8908/WS-Reliability-2004-08-23.sxw
As of
the morning of 8/24 there were no comments posted on any of the drafts. 6 Scheduled Vote on Draft 1.086 as CD (only if we are quorate)else we could initiate a Kavi 7 day ballot, or wait till Aug 31. Alan moved to vote on draft 1.086 as cd, seconded by Jacques. Voted 15 yes, 0 no, 0 Abstain (see column in roll call table) Greater than 2/3 members vote yes. Motion carries. 7 Scheduled Votes for further progression (only if CD is voted yes)7.1 Vote on whether changes from CD .992 are substantiveDoug: I sent an email to the list with a group of issues which add up to this being substantial difference from .992. While each change might be construed as minor, all of the changes put together are a substantive change. Doug: I would like to frame the motion better. If we need to ask for motions from the floor for the other votes. Alan: NEC implementers told me that the sum of all the changes do not add up to substantive change in their implementation, only minor coding changes are required. Bob F: Doug: You stated the changes are in areas that do not matter to them. Bob F: the biggest changes are outside the area which impacted their implementation. Doug: I am concerned that the emails are regarding changes from parts of .992. Bob F: We are admitting that we do not have a full implementation of .992. Jacques: I just relayed the opinion of our implementor, on our opinion the interpretation of substantive is crucial here. If Substantive means new features are added, the changes are not substantive, since we have made changes which have shifted things around for editorial reasons. From an implementation consideration, the changes are not substantive. Mark Peel: Have the implementers took the .992 spec and interpreted the words to be the same as the clarifications made in the 1.086 spec.? Bob F: Our implementers have made very few interpretations which are different than what is in 1.086, and thus have to make very little changes to the implementation. Jacques moved that we vote on whether the changes from .992 are substantive. Alan seconded. Yes means they are substantive , no means not Voted 3 yes, 11 no, 2 Abstain (see column in roll call table) No votes carry.
Majority say changes are not substantive 7.2 Vote to Submit to OASIS for member vote (subject to no vote on 7.1))Bob F moved to submit this CD for OASIS member vote for approval seconded by Joe. Voted 12 yes, 2 no, 1 Abstain (see column in roll call table) Yes votes carry, motion
passes. 8 Discussion of document progression and future meeting schedule8.1 Future F2F meetingFrom Aug 17 minutes: Tom: lets consider two possible tracks:
Oasis staff knows The first week of Nov is no good. XML 2004 nov 15 – 12. Second week of November 8-12 are potentially a good date. One
day Face to face in Pete: if there are fewer than 15% voting no, those have to be address, and the TC has to then vote to accept as a standard. 8.2 Next teleconf.Tom asked question, should next meeting be in Two or three weeks. Bob: we are now sitting around. Doug: New letters need to be send from companies referring to their experience citing cd 1.086. Bob F: I do not want our meeting to miss the Sept 15 deadline. Agreed on every two weeks for 1 hour, starting sept 7. 8.3 Interop SC progress reportBob F: being discussed among OASIS staff is a interop demo as an OASIS event before the end of this year. I have indicated to OASIS the desire to be part of that. It would be better to concentrate our efforts for public event to that one. For the Private event, a rational time might be the private demo at the beginning of week during the November meeting at the end of the week. Early November in CA is a good time. 8.4 Future Work Items· Agenda items
for next week's call work plan: prioritize and schedule all work items, including: a]response to CD and public review comments, b] app note/ implementer's guide, updated requirements doc, etc. c]Define a process for iterating results/ feedback from interop event and new requirements into version 2 of the WS Reliability spec d] other work items, TBD Doug: one question is whether we want to put the source in the zip file for the CD. No difference pdf file in the zip. File. Bob F moved to adjourn, Joe C seconded. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]