OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Groups - Event "XLIFF Teleconference" modified

Submitter's message
Minutes from last meeting.
-- Bryan Schnabel
Event Title: XLIFF Teleconference

Date: Tuesday, 01 April 2014, 11:00am to 12:00pm EDT

Please get the dial in information from our private Action Item here:


This meeting counts towards voter eligibility.


I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)

  A. Roll call
  B. Approved meeting minutes, 18 March 2014 https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201403/msg00142.html

II XLIFF 2.0 (0:10 - 0:45)

  A. Special Majority Ballot to approve XLIFF Version 2.0 as a Committee Specification - passed unanimously

  B. Evaluate readiness for OASIS Specification per schedule (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201401/msg00026.html)
    - See step 6 (6. Approve OASIS Standard  (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#OASISstandard ) [19 Mar - 09 Jun])

      3.4 Approval of an OASIS Standard

      Approval of an OASIS Standard is a multi-step process:

      Submission of a Candidate OASIS Standard to the TC Administrator,
      Completion of a public review lasting a minimum of 60 days, and
      A membership-wide ballot.
      A potential single, second membership-wide ballot to address negative comments.

  C. SOU readiness (https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF%202.0%20SOU%20Tracker)

  D. Reduce meeting frequency back down to 1/month during OASIS Standard activity?

III XLIFF 2.X? 3.0? (0:45 - 0:50)

  A. Freeze on Feature Tracking wiki? Or queue proposed post 2.0 features there?

  B. Do we have an official path for promoting custom namespace to supported core/module post XLIFF 2.0?

IV Charter

V Sub Committee Report (0:50 - 0:55)

VI Current and New Business (0:55 - )


- Presents a summary of the agenda
-- We have approved the meeting minutes.
-- Summarises the next steps (XLIFF 2.x);

- We have quorum;
- Attendance:
- We have 10 out of 13 voters;
- Ray and Dave have left the LRC and they won't be able to join the TC in their new jobs.

- Moving to item 2:
- We have achieved our committee spec; officially passed it on March 31, passed it unanimously; we are officially in a new milestone.
- Item 2.b -> Evaluate the next step; next step would be to move towards an official OASIS specification;
- After we approve the specification to be considered to be an OASIS spec, we have a 60 day review; we let the community observe the spec; then we have a period of time that voting takes place; ... the danger is that we will get not enough participation at all; there is a 14 day voting period and at least 15% of the OASIS membership has to have voted;

- Can you clarify .. we will publish now the cs01, but how does the OASIS 60 day review start? at which point do we need declare the statement of use (SOU)?
- We cannot move further without SOU, is that correct?

- yes.
- Going through the tc-process: https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#OASISstandard
- Officially speaking, SOUs  are not very rigorous; merely needs to be somebody stating that they intent to use XLIFF 2.0;
- We as a TC have come to an agreement that we would like to have use cases that are more rigours than SOUs
-- Spec has been implemented to a certain degree: Yves and I've done some work so don't feel like we are in danger of publishing a spec that is not implementable;  but we have to have those three SOU before we ask for a special majority vote ballot from our TC admin

- Collecting SOU are now in the critical path;
- I propose that we should use P&L proposed questionnaire for collecting these statements.

- Good idea
- Where it will put us from the perspective of timing?
- If we were to ask Chet for our special majority ballot today, assuming SOU are in place, the soonest 60 day public review would complete on 31st of May, 8 days later than we originally collected;
- DF's idea is a good one, but would like to have an idea about the impact on the calendar;

- Timing will be little bit later than expected;
- I don't propose the questionnaire to slow the process, but I think it is the quickest way to collect SOU;
- We can give 2 business days to comments on the Survey, and then release the survey;
- We can make the call for Chet as soon as when we collect 3 SOUs;

- Presents the survey in detail: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XLIFF2SOU

- Need to know the state of the implementations.

- I will add that to the survey.

- Any comments on the survey?
- I will be filling it out on behalf of the LRC.
- I would suggest we should send this not only to TC, but to community at large;  e.g. related members such as Moravia, SDL.
- I wouldn't wait till the final results; we can move ahead when we have 3 satisfactory answers and one of the implementers is an OASIS member, which should be fulfilled with the LRC

- It is fine, but if we get SOU that are not received through this survey, it's perfectly fine as well.

- well, but..

- If someone wants to make a SOU without falling-out the survey, that's fine as well.

- Then we need to define the structure for collecting a free SOU, without the questionnaire.

- Not sure you can do that; people doing the SOU are the one stating something, not us.

- TC is required to judge the SOUs submitted by implementers

- They can, no problem;

- So we do not make this the way how to collect SOUs?

- You can make it the way, but let's not force people to do that if they do not need to. If someone just want to make a SOU, that's fine we should look at it and then figure out whether it is a okay one or not; that's it; in addition to the survey
- Not understanding the why it is a problem
- SOU is a voluntary thing;

- reads the definition of SOU:
"Statement of Use", with respect to a Committee Specification, is a written statement that a party has successfully used or implemented that specification in accordance with all or some of its conformance clauses specified in Section 2.18, identifying those clauses that apply, and stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations. The Statement of Use must be made to a specific version of the Committee Specification and must include the Specification's approval date. The party may be an OASIS Member or a non-member. In case of a non-member, the Statement of Use must be submitted on the TC comment-list. A TC may require a Statement of Use to include hyperlinks to documents, files or demonstration transcripts that enable TC members to evaluate the implementation or usage. A Statement of Use submitted to the TC must be approved by TC resolution as an acceptable Statement of Use with respect to the Committee Specification. A party can only issue one Statement of Use for a given specification. When issued by an OASIS Organizational Member, a Statement of Use must be endorsed by the Organizational Member's Primary Representative.

- Questionnaire is a very good tool to get details;
- But all we need to have is in cases of none members, a comment listed and a resolution from TC that we accept the SOU;

- I think we probably lack some other definition;
- Every SOU needs to specify which part of the spec it supports and which parts are not;
- I think this questionnaire is the minimal that you need to establish ...
- I don't see how this can be done without a questionnaire; I wouldn't certainly go through unstructured statements to that effect

F (via chat):
- I did not sound from what Bryan said that it was up to us to decide to not allow people to submit statements of use to our comment list instead of using the questionnaire

- DF, can you walk us through the procedure that involves this survey and what the timeline might be?

- People will send feedback to the questionnaire within the next 2 business days
- Post it in the TC, where it is appropriate to post,
- L will make the questionnaire public and she will post the link on the TC and members can share/publish the link then;
- We cannot forbid people to send unstructured SOU to the comment list
- I think getting the structured data is the best and the quickest way

- I completely agree; but, in case if someone decided not to take the survey and email us a SOU, we should structure it ourselves to figure out whether it is valid or not;
- If we just make the call to fill out the questionnaire, we will have structured data related to 3 SOUs in short time and then we can pass the info on to Chet

- Also a requirement that primary investigator to endorse the statement;

- You will fill it out to make sure that it has proper data we are looking for, in the meantime someone talks to the primary representative and get it endorsed;
- I would ask Reinhard to endorse and send the questionnaire that will be filled out by me.

L(via chat):
- Can anybody quote a good example of SOU on the web? from a similar standard approval proccess?

- Ok

- Collection of unstructured data may leave out important details; details are needed in this case;
- I would propose to publish the questionnaire as an official initiative to collect the SOUs;
- I agree that we cannot prevent from people sending unstructured SOU; so try to collect data through questionnaire; and I don't think we've specified alternatives.
- Do you want to set a deadline for feedback for the questionnaire?
- or do you disagree that a questionnaire is not the best method to collect SOU?
- I could make it as call for dissent, it seems to me that so far that F and Y agreed that questionnaire is a good way; I agree that, we cannot prevent unstructured data from coming, that said I would make the questionnaire main method to collect data;

- Agree.
- We should allow unstructured comments to come in.
- We need to make sure that we have one official member ... SOU accepts and votes in favour of .. one would be minimally the LRC;

- We also discussed how to get the data endorsed by the primary representative of the org.
- Action item: scan the process; we might need to add to the questionnaire ... to make it exact fit;
- Are we okay with this questionnaire?
- I will double check with Chet also.
- Is everyone ok with upcoming 2 days for commenting?

- Seconds the proposal to use the questionnaire as the method for collecting data;

- I think we are trying to call for dissent.
- I proposed  a resolution that Lucia and I are mandated to release the questionnaire within this week as the SOU collecting initiative. We will be collecting TC feedback to the questionnaire within the two upcoming days -is the resolution ok?

- Not sure what do you mean by two upcoming the days?

- Before the questionnaire is launched TC members can give feedback;

- People can look-up the survey;

- Link to the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XLIFF2SOU

- Does anybody object?
- No objections. Consider proposal to be passed.
- SOU will be collected as proposed by DF. Let's visit that link and give feedback in a timely manner as possible.
- Any comments on the SOU or next steps for passing our spec?

- Will there be a deadline after the questionnaire is officially out, to get the results?

- There should be a deadline.

- Propose 2 weeks.

- Sounds reasonable to me.

- But say that we would take the first best three and include them in the progression request not waiting for the deadline;  is that ok?

- We will be able to harvest the SOU that we minimally need to move to the next step, special majority vote; we'd also need to vote to accept these SOU in a TC meeting;

- Summarises: we are going to publish the survey within two days time, and collect the first three SOU, as soon as we have three SOUs we can progress on the TC and then the survey continues for another 3 weeks;
-Is there a way to gather the results before the end of the survey using the Surveymonkey?


- We need anyway to approve them in a TC meeting so the target is to have them by the next meeting (i.e. in 2 weeks)
- Alternatively, we can launch electronic ballots for each but that would not be quicker

- Agree.
- Action item: to recalculate the calendar.
- Requests LRC and other orgs to fill in the survey.
- DF, update on the subcommittee meeting?

- The important thing is that f2f will be a part of the Symposium on 4th June
- Collecting community input for 2.1 and 2.x
- This should be discussed in the SC

- Summarises the items discussed during the meeting
- No new business.
- 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

NOTE: The best way to keep your desktop calendar updated is to subscribe to the Group calendar.

  • Learn more about subscribing here.
  • View the updated Group web calendar here.
PRODID:-//Kavi Corporation//NONSGML Kavi Groups//EN
SUMMARY:XLIFF Teleconference
DESCRIPTION:\n	Please get the dial in information from our private
  Action Item
  here:\n\n	https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3663\n\nAgenda:
  \n	I Administration (0:00 - 0:10)\n\n	  A. Roll call\n	  B.
  Approved meeting minutes, 18 March 2014
  https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201403/msg00142.html\n\n	II
  XLIFF 2.0 (0:10 - 0:45)\n\n	  A. Special Majority Ballot to
  approve XLIFF Version 2.0 as a Committee Specification -
  passed unanimously\n	    
   B. Evaluate readiness for OASIS Specification per schedule
     - See step 6 (6. Approve OASIS Standard 
  ) [19 Mar - 09 Jun])\n\n	      3.4 Approval of an OASIS
  Standard\n\n	      Approval of an OASIS Standard is a
  multi-step process:\n\n	      Submission of a Candidate
  OASIS Standard to the TC Administrator,\n	      Completion
  of a public review lasting a minimum of 60 days, and\n	     
  A membership-wide ballot.\n	      A potential single, second
  membership-wide ballot to address negative comments.\n\n	 
  C. SOU readiness
   D. Reduce meeting frequency back down to 1/month during
  OASIS Standard activity?\n\n\n	III XLIFF 2.X? 3.0? (0:45 -
  0:50)\n\n	  A. Freeze on Feature Tracking wiki? Or queue
  proposed post 2.0 features there?\n\n	  B. Do we have an
  official path for promoting custom namespace to supported
  core/module post XLIFF 2.0?\n\n	IV Charter\n\n	V Sub
  Committee Report (0:50 - 0:55)\n\n	VI Current and New
  Business (0:55 - )\nGroup: OASIS XML Localisation
  Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC\nCreator: Bryan Schnabel

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]