Making the draft to the minutes of record Re: 16 April, 2012 TC notes

Subject: Making the draft to the minutes of record Re: 16 April, 2012 TC notes

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote:

Meeting minutes April 16, 2013
Based on Bryan's record below amended by voting records, plus added some detail

Regrets: Kevin
Late to the call: Yves

Needed: minute taker.

Attending: [17]
Victor Amaya
Helena Chapman

Shirley Cody
Tom Comerford
Fredrik Estreen

DavidF Filip
Ryan King
Lucía Morado

Michael Ow
Peter Reynolds
Jung Woo Ryoo
Yves Savourel

Bryan Schnabel
Joachim Schurig
Uwe Stahlschmidt

DavidW Walters
Asanka Wasala

Eligible Voters: [13 out of 14]

Victor Amaya
Helena Chapman
Shirley Cody

Tom Comerford
Fredrik Estreen
DavidF Filip

Ryan King
Yves Savourel
Bryan Schnabel

Joachim Schurig
Uwe Stahlschmidt
DavidW Walters

Asanka Wasala

Bryan moves to accept meeting minutes of 02-April-2013 with Joachim's correction http://markmail.org/message/quoue7o7jklrp6ad as meeting minutes of record.

Joachim seconds, no objections

DavidF: We will hopefully need to conduct two Full Majority ballots today and later discuss the review publicity strategy. Full majority means that we need more than half of yes votes compared to all voters rather than to voters in attendance. With 14 voters, we will need at least 8 votes in each ballot for the draft to pass to public review.

Fredrik: Why make two ballots?

DavidF explains that getting the spec to public review actually involves two steps in OASIS TC process:
so that we first need to move the Draft from Editors' Working Draft to Committee Specification Draft that can be moved by another subsequent ballot to Committee Specification Public Review Draft. I guess we better have 2 separate ballots to be on the safe side.

DavidF moves that the current Specification and schemas
[SVN Revision 252] http://bit.ly/T0GPoW [pdf] http://bit.ly/11eSr66 [html] http://bit.ly/11eSYF7 [core schema] http://bit.ly/11eTenD [module schemas]

are approved as the Committee Specification Draft.
Tom seconds.
Victor asks for summary of changes made in last two weeks.
DavidF: There was lot of work, but very little material change. The changes we've done include.

- Referencing core elements from top level module elements and vice versa
- Bringing schema up to date, connected trees and catalog updates
- updating schema listings to reflect current schemas

- unifying use of normative keywords as decorated with <glossterm> as per OASIS template
- Changed normalization behavior in Validation to reflect recent consensus
- Fredrik clarified normalization use in slr

The above should cover pretty much everything, loads of commits but very little impact from the point of view of a casual reader.
Tom and Bryan: What DavidF says seems to be an accurate summary.
David: There are a few issues deliberately left open for the public review like the resegmentation PRs. Based on recent mailing list traffic, no one seems to have a blocking issue with the draft as is.

Bryan: +1

Ballot Results:
Yes Votes: Victor Amaya, Helena Chapman, Shirley Cody, Tom Comerford, Fredrik Estreen, DavidF Filip, Ryan King, Yves Savourel, Bryan Schnabel, Joachim Schurig, Uwe Stahlschmidt, DavidW Walters, Asanka Wasala.

No Votes: 0
Abstains: 0

Ballot passed unanimously.

DavidF moves to the CSD just approved to Public Review, i.e. creating a Committee Specification Public Review Draft based on the same WD [svn revision 252].
Bryan Seconds

Ballot Results:
Yes Votes: Victor Amaya, Helena Chapman, Shirley Cody, Tom Comerford, Fredrik Estreen, DavidF Filip, Ryan King, Yves Savourel, Bryan Schnabel, Joachim Schurig, Uwe Stahlschmidt, DavidW Walters, Asanka Wasala.

No Votes: 0
Abstains: 0

Ballot passed unanimously.

[Helena makes us aware that Michael Ow is in attendance, although he did not contest the role call, he might have earned voting - he will contact officers for resolution offline.]

Bryan, what if someone who is no longer with the TC does not want to be credited in the spec?
DavidF: If they are no longer on TC they should use the same commenting facility as any other comment. Changes to Public review draft should be initiated via the commenting facility, i.e. the Comment Button on the public TC page.

WRT commenting on CSPRD in general, the TC members can and are expected to comment on the spec along with the public. We must look at all comments received on the comment list and the normal TC voting list.
Fredrik: All should be sent to one list, so that we can dispose of comments effectively.
DavidF: Yes, it is best practice to send all comments also to the comment list, although we cannot enforce it. We must deal with comments comming to the TC list only based on OASIS process. Still, all XLIFF TC members who plan to comment on public spec review should join the comment list.

DavidF, next topic is timing for public reveiw (must be at least 30 days)

opt 1 (60): can expand to go past X symp
+1 DavidW (make review longer so that XLIFF Symposium is in 1st review window)
opt 2 (30): can answer/resolve first round and start a second round by XLIFF Symposium date and F2F (June 10)
+1 DavidF, Bryan,

DavidF moves to vote for 30 day review or 60 day review. The options are 60, 30, abstain. It is a simple majority vote the option with most votes wins.
Voters for 60 days review: [4] Victor Amaya, Fredrik Estreen, Uwe Stahlschmidt, DavidW Walters

Voters for 30 days review: [7] Shirley Cody, Tom Comerford, DavidF Filip, Ryan King, Yves Savourel, Bryan Schnabel, Joachim Schurig

Abstains: Asanka Wasala, Helena Chapman

30 days initial review passed.

New business?

P&L SC report:
3 agenda items
- XLIFF Symposium: extended call for submissions April 19; still looking for sponsors; June 10 f2f at MS in Central London - need to register by sending details to DavidF and Kevin
- publicity of CSPRD review
- Liaison with ISO TC 37, SC 5, will be brough to TC next time

Meeting adjourned

Dr. David Filip

=======================

LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Schnabel, Bryan S <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:06 PM
Subject: 16 April, 2012 TC notes, first draft
To: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>

Regrets: Kevin
Late to the call: Yves
Needed: minute taker

Attending:
Asanka
DavidW
DavidF
Fredrik
H
JS
JR
L
P
RK
SC
TC
U
V
Bryan
Y
M

Voting members:
V
H
S
T
F
D
B
J
U
D
A
Y

Bryan moves meeting minutes 02-April-2013
JS second, no objections

David moves that the current Spec and schema are approved as Committ Spec Draft
Tom seconds
Votes:
V - y
H - y
S - y
T - y
F - y
DW - y
B - y
J - y
U - y
DF - y
A - y
Y - y
R - y

pass

DavidF move to send to PR
Bryan Seconds
V - y
H - y
S - y
T - y
F - y
DW - y
B - y
J - y
U - y
DF - y
A - y
Y - y
R - y

pass

Non TC members who wish to not be cited on Public draft need to indicate on XLIFF comment list

Michael Ow has attended and thinks he might have earned voting - he will contact officers and list which meetings he attended

XLIFF TC members who plan to comment on public spec review should join comment list

Timing for public reveiw (must be at least 30 days)
opt 1 (60): can expand to go past X symp
+1 DW (make review longer so symp is in 1st review window)
opt 2 (30): can answer/resolve first round and start a second round by symp date
+1 DF, B,

DavidF move to vote 30 day review or 60 day
DavidW
V - 60
S - 30
T - 30
F - 60
DW - 60
B - 30
J - 30
U - 60
DF - 30
A - A
Y - 30
R - 30

30 passed

New business?

SC report
3 agenda items
- X Symp: extended call for submissions April 19; looking for spons; June 10 f2f at MS - need to register by sending details to DF and Kevin
- publicity of CSD pub review
- Lias w/ISO (DavidF will fill in details for minutes)

xliff message