Event Title: XLIFF TC Call
Date: Tuesday, 17 September 2013, 11:00am to 12:00pm EDT
Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.
France: +33 (0) 182 880 780
Germany: +49 (0) 892 2061 159
Spain: +34 911 23 0850
Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 612
United Kingdom: +44 (0) 203 535 0611
United States: +1 (773) 945-1031
Access Code: 905-529-225
Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting
Meeting ID: 905-529-225
This meeting counts towards voter eligibility.
I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)
A. Roll call
B. Approved previous meeting minutes, 03 September 2013 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201309/msg00016.html
(approved between meetings via mailing list)
II XLIFF 2.0 (0:10 - 0:45)
A. Actions required to stay on track according to our timeline https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201306/msg00042.html
1. If the XLIFF 2.0 Public Review II has started, go over next steps
2. If not, go over next steps in the absence of a started public review
3. Review new projected timeline https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/email/archives/201309/msg00029.html
III XLIFF 2.X? 3.0? (0:45 - 0:50)
1. Freeze on Feature Tracking wiki? Or queue proposed post 2.0 features there?
2. Do we have an official path for promoting custom namespace to supported core/module post XLIFF 2.0?
IV Charter (Bryan to update site)
V Sub Committee Report (0:50 - 0:55)
VI Current and New Business (0:55 - )
- we have the quorum;
- meeting minutes were approved via the mailing list in order to make sure everything is in shape to start the second public review;
- Agenda item II: xliff 2.0 activity:
- in the last meeting we approved as a committee .. we revised the committee draft and we requested to start the 15 day public review; unfortunately the TC administrator at OASIS is very busy; we are still waiting for the official public review to start; he told us that the projected start date would be today; but haven't received any notifications yet; but I'm going to assume today will be 1st day of the public review; if there are any delays based on the workload of the OASIS administrator, i will make adjustments;
- moving on to the timeline published most recently: the first half of ... results of agreed upon steps from our last timeline and plugging in the new dates based on the start date of the 2nd public review;if we have any substantive updates ... public review, there is every possibility that we'd have to get another committee draft then start another 15 day public review;
- new reconciled public review date was 3rd of September; that's when we all agreed that the task list was up to date on the wiki tracker;
- we also know related, but not necessary impacting the timeline; i.e. to provide the statement of use;
- we would need to identify the statement of use by 16th of Oct. (i.e. 2nd TC meeting in Oct.);
- to satisfy the minimum requirements at OASIS, we need to have at least the coverage of core features;
- options: statements of use for each module and each core feature module; eg. one application that covers the whole set of features: core & modules ; that's one way to do it; not obligated have a one reference application ; we could also have an ecosystem of tools; set of tools that demonstrates each of the features in core and modules;
- this is to show that the written specification can be implementable;
- we need to identify these by 16th of Oct, we'll have those actionable by the 04th of Dec;
- ecosystem of tool by 16th Oct, roll out by the 20th of November;
- going back to our specification and schema; we re-approved the committee draft on our last meeting (3rd Sept);
- 15 day public review will conclude by the 30th of Sept;
- assuming that the public review goes well, we have no substantive comments that would make us need to re-approve another committee draft, then we can move to the next step which is committee specification
- committee specification would start on the next TC meeting after the conclusion of the public review (16th Oct meeting); assuming everything goes fine, we would conduct our committee specification ballot
- once we approve that, the next step is the approval of XLIFF as an OASIS standard, that would also start on the 16th Oct ... conclude on the 06th of Jan
- there is an obligatory public review (60 days) that must take place before the official balloting began; after the conclusion of the public review, we begin the official two week voting period; if we change nothing, we would pass ... it would begin on 23rd of Dec, it would include new years day; .. xliff being a non-mainstream specification ...
- what we really need to do is to adjust this state; if we are feeling ambitious, we can adjust it forward; we could start back theoretically on 2nd of Oct. which would move everything by 15 days; which means we would include our specification before December 23rd. that's one option; I am a bit skeptical about that approach. The other approach would be that we would ... on step 5 here, we would need to project that forward, so that we would delay that approval of the specification and candidate specification until sometime after 16th Oct, probably we would need to do at our 1st Nov TC meeting or we could even call for a meeting on a Tuesday in Oct. ...comfortably into end of January to hopefully get more attention from voters; from here I think it would be useful for us to have a discussions now about the best way forward would be; we can discuss that now or look at what does an OASIS specification procedure looks like; Kevin has asked about this before; I came up with answers, mainly by paraphrasing the language in the OASIS guidelines;
- the eligible voters would be anybody who has voting membership in the OASIS committee; that would be organisation members;
- I asked the TC admin about the definition of organisation members and give us a list of the organisation members;
- first of all, we need to get 15% of the eligible voting membership to vote; that was a big challenge in XLIFF 1.2;
- if we get less than 15% votes, then the ballot fails, but if we continue on and if we do get 15% of the membership to vote and if we get no negative votes among all of the voters then we pass on the spot; last time we had no negative votes;
- if we get 15% of the votes and if we do get some negative votes, under that scenario if 25% of votes are against, then the ballot fails
- if we get 15% of the votes and if we do get some negative votes less than 25%, then we have some options; we can ask the TC admin to pass the standard; we could take a look at the negative votes and as a TC, if we think that none of those votes are legitimate .. then we'd ask the TC administrator to approve the standard;
- if we look at negative votes and decided they are substantive enough to withdraw then we can withdraw the submission.
- our third choice is that we can amend our submission to address the negative votes; then take it from there;
- If the ballot fails because of less than 15% of members vote, what are the next steps?
- we would need to find out the causes, then we'd go back to a committee draft and start over again; if the committee candidate... fails, that means we should essentially start over and we would need to start new 50 days public review;
DavidF, Frederick joined;
- <summarises Davidf,Frederick the previous discussion about the timeline>
-too many unknowns; I wouldn't slow down because of this e.g. admin time to publish;
-true; there are things beyond our control;
- we cannot take comments officially; spec is blocked for two weeks; nothing changed technically or in any other way; just that the OASIS administration are working at their top speed but there are too many things happening.
- How many of us are sticking around during the Dec holidays? out of curiosity.
what's our dec meeting schedule like in Dec?
- if we were to conduct our December meetings as schedule and we have enough participation; 1st meeting would be on 3rd Dec, and the second will be on 7th Dec; like to know if anybody is not going to be able to attend?
- seems like we will probably be able to work as scheduled in December; the best thing is to not do anything now other than to acknowledge the current schedule..
- checking the calendar..
- we should probably have a discussion about the January 7; if enough people are back from holidays etc.
- maybe we could run a doodle for next three meetings? I can set it up
- good idea;
- what would be the impact if we do not reach the quorum on the 07th of January? ..
- can you add a "maybe" option in the doodle? I am actually thinking about the first one of January
- possible; but wonder whether if it is the best thing to do in this case as we are trying to figure out whether there will be a quorum or not;
The concern would be on 6.C.
- any questions or comments on the timeline in general?
- I can open up more broad discussion about the ballot approval
- are there any questions on the procedures that I outlined?
- provided that we are not making another public review which is also possible; we will be receiving public comments; we will see if we will be able to do only editorial changes to the spec
- next steps will be mostly administrative procedures
- I have a basic question, where we are now?
- there is a public draft posted on the main page of the XLIFF TC, is that the latest one?
- the editor's draft is currently exposed on the wiki;
- I am talking about the main page of the XLIFF TC; that’s where people are going to go; it is dated 3rd of Sept.
- publication date remains the same; it is the date of the approval; only front matter changes;
- it should be the latest; just checking;
- Action item for DavidF: verify the draft found on the XLIFF TC main page, is the most recent version ;
- verified, it is the most recent version;
- what are we waiting from the admin site?
- public draft is not on the official path; it has not gone through the admin; TC approved the draft; but officially not out;
- I am still confused. There is a public review 2.0 that is accessible from the public; what is not official or public about it?
-it is not accessible via the official path, that is in the spec.
- we are not authorised to announce the public review; only the oasis admin can
- waiting for a mail to be sent to the OASIS mailing list announcing the public review of XLIFF
- that mail is going to come soon?
- we expected it by the end of week; the draft was ok; there were tiny changes that i fixed in 10 mins after being told by the admin; they weren't able to push it;
-it’s almost the end of 17 Sept...; it pushes everything, thanks for the clarification.
-I debated whether I should not realign the timeline; ... if they do not announce, I will change it
- publicly available spec is the very latest version; but it is not officially out.
we are waiting for OASIS's announcement; we have a few organisational members on the TC that will work in our favour
- it is about time - it's better to get it done before Christmas; we may have delays; people will have other priorities.
- this is the official link:http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.0/csprd02/xliff-core-v2.0-csprd02.html - until we see something here; the draft is not officially announced.
-it’s more practical to have the official ballot start later than sooner; calendar that I outlined assumes pin point accuracy;
- any questions on the XLIFF 2.0 public review or the timeline or anything?
- moving to agenda item 5: promotion and liaison sub comm. meeting, inviting Davidf to give an update;
-I think we should meet today; we should talk mainly the reference implementation or the statements of use as they are on a critical path; they will be needed when we progress to the candidate specification stage; slowing down the process gives times to prepare reference implementations and statements of use.
- people should work internally on committing resources for reference implementations;
- spec is not a standard until it will be implemented; TC should concentrate on planning and collecting commitments ; Bryan made a public commitment; University of Limerick is working on it; Trinity College is working currently on a generator that is up to date to the the second public review draft; Moravia is looking into it; it looks good; we will need to start tracking these and we would need to have commitments for the modules like size and restriction modules; change tracking etc.
- I designed to use the wiki tracker for this purpose
- I will have that ready to go when we are ready to track the commitments;
- I will ready to have it in place by end of this week
- I have not renewed the invite;
- I will now disconnect and send the invites now;
- if anybody has new business for our 1st meeting in Oct?
- no new business requested
- meeting adjourned
Owner: Bryan Schnabel
Group: OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC
Sharing: This event is shared with the OASIS Open (General Membership), and General Public groups.
Public Event Link