On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Yves Savourel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
XLIFF TC Call - Summary
Date: Tuesday, 04 December 2012, 11:00am to 12:00pm EST
=== 1/ Roll call
Present: Yves, Bryan, Kevin, Tom, Shirley, DavidW, Fredrik, Helena, Victor, DavidF, Peter, Joachim, Jungwoo, Michael, Uwe, Ryan, Asanka,
=== 2/ Administration
--- 1. Approve Tuesday, 20 November 2012 meeting minutes:
Bryan moves to approve the minutes
--- 2. XLIFF TC officer update
Bryan: Rodolfo has resigned from the TC.
.. I regrets this and thank him for his great work.
.. DavidF and Tom have volunteers for specification editor and schema editor.
.. thanks for pitching in.
.. no formal voting/nomination process for becoming editors.
.. from history, the secretary in the XLIFF TC is appointed by the chair.
.. and being editor comes with being secretary.
.. I've checked and this is fine.
.. anyone with concern about this: please contact me privately to raise your concerns.
--- 3. Updates to features in SVN:
When a ballot is needed, and when a simple acknowledgment of the feature owner will do
Bryan: would like input from the floor.
.. moving to CD (Committee Draft) is a bit overwhelming.
.. Some question about how features are moved to accepted and how to make changes to them.
.. let's take a second to see when ballots are needed or not.
.. personal opinion: Common sense is the best guide for this. Think all has been done
.. openly and clearly.
.. think that once a feature is approved, the "owner" decides if modification is important enough for a ballot,
.. or just a email/call discussion.
.. Any other options, thoughts?
F: think own can decide if modification need a ballot is a bit ambiguous.
.. if the changes affect the feature in a way it becomes different, we should have a ballot.
DF: you both think the same, but who is better qualified to ask for a ballot but the owner.
F: ballot on each point is not the way to go.
.. if mailing list is aware of the proposal if it's minor and there is no dissent, then change can be made with ballot.
DF: ballot is prudent if the change is substantial
F: try consensus first, go to ballot only on last resort
R: example match with reference was a substantial change, but smaller change didn't warrant a ballot.
.. so we have a precedent
B: also some people may think consensus is reached other not.
.. owner can make best judgment
.. also anyone can step in and propose a ballot is needed if someone see that need.
.. think group is good enough to work with those guidelines.
DF: think we should move to the features.
=== 3/ XLIFF 2.0 (http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking )
B: all but two features are in section 1 or 3.
.. may need an extra section for 'parking lot'
DF: about the extra section: thought we agree we can split section 3 into 3.1 and 3.2 (parking lot and discarded).
.. so we can keep procedures
B: and I attempted to do this on the wiki
.. could not divide the section 3 into two sub-section.
DF: we could just use some attribute.
B: will work on that.
B: remaining items:
- validation module (to accepted)
- and access rights (to parking lot)
DF: move to parking lot should be simply automatic.
Shirley: will move the feature then.
R: we decided also to merged some of the feature with tracking.
S: no, this is just for the access rights (S4)
.. not for the tracking.
.. so we still have track changes with Ryan's feature
.. so S4 to parking lot, and tracking-related one will go with Ryan's track changes
DF: there are only 2 item in section 2
.. R43 (tracking) is approved
S: so S4 will go to parking lot.
DF: yes, and R43 is still under approved.
R: yes all is good.
--- 1. Features proposed/discussed on the mailing list
-- d. 2.0 Validations Module Proposal (Ryan)
R: not ready yet to propose a ballot
.. but we will (Uwe will do that)
.. want to be sure we have something in 2.0 about validation
.. and can improve that in 2.x
F: is the intention that all in approved section will be for sure in 2.0?
.. a lot of that section is not ready
.. feel that we can't do that to have CD by end of year
.. we can't have too many incomplete or underspecified feature to have that accepted.
DF: impression was also that validation was not stable.
.. IMO would park it to 2.1
B: so looking at the list, it seems about 30% are not done.
.. so validation would be the 8th 'not done' feature
Y: no sure CD is a 'final' draft.
B: yes CD is a draft representing a current view of the committee
.. we can make modifications to it.
.. the calendar date says we will have a CD, not a CS (Committee Specification)
.. a full majority has to pass the CD.
.. but we can published other, updated.
Uwe: can we finish the validation discussion.
.. moves for a yes/no ballot on having a validation module in 2.0
yes: 6, abstain: 7 out of 13.
F: there is no 'no' only 'yes' and 'abstain'
DF: think the motion does not carries.
.. will look up the process and get back on email.
.. will do that ASAP
F: see no problem still working on the feature.
.. think there are a lot of things to work on.
.. will support trying to get it in 2.0
B: agree as well
-- 3. 1.2 to 2.0 Gaps and Proposals (metaData)
1. More than one <mda:metadata> with a name attribute at the extension point
2. One <mda:metadata> at the extension point with a <metagroup> element
3. One <mda:metadata> at the extension point with a group attribute on <meta>
R: in email we had a lot of discussion about metadata
.. adding name, using several at different extension point, etc.
.. will we have a ballot on this or not?
B: think it's major change that merits a ballot.
so moves to have a ballot on this as per Ryan's email
V: what options?
B: 1) attribute - metadata elements have an extra attribute for grouping:
2) group - an extra element to group within metadata: 10
3) multiple - multiple metadata on the same extension point:
4) abstain : 3
B: sent info about how to edit the documents and work with SVN,
.. owners should try to defined your feature
DF: important to each owner to work on the source of the specification
.. will post some modifications soon: some definitions, etc.
.. important to have Processing Requirements too
.. that work across the modules and core
.. some are missing
.. will try to update the accepted changes to the specifications as well
F: If you don't what to use Oxygen, you can use XSLT transform
.. also should owner modify the schemas?
T: if people want to update schema it's ok, but want a heads up if you do it.
DF: make sure you put comments when doing the commits
B: we'll know about the validation ballot soon from DF.
.. important to make the date for the CD
.. but more important to have an approved framework
.. it's a good thing now done.
=== 4/ Sub Committee Reports
--- 1. Inline text (Yves)
Yves: The proposal seems to be ready.
We're waiting for feedback on how to deal with renamed attribute and then hope to pass the proposal next week.
--- 2. XLIFF Promotion and Liaison SC Charter (David)
Wiki page for consolidating takeaways from the 3rd XLIFF Symposium
DF: starting to plan for next symposium, maybe summer.
.. also started to collect data from last symposium.
=== 6/ New Business
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: