==============================================================
Minutes TAB call (Aug 23, 2013)
==============================================================


Info

Dial:
Host confcall: Fujitsu
US Toll Free: 877-995-3314
US Toll/International: 210-339-1806


Agenda

1. Admin:
- minutes Aug 9, (minutes to be posted)
- action items status
- aspects of using JIRA to track TAB's work, tooling

2. Normative Keyword directives doc review

3. Public Reviews process for TAB (assignments? Selective review items?)

4. Review of Patricl's concordance of keywords, schema terms
(due to lack of time, removed: "Foray into Conformance Guidelines 2.0," )


Roll:

Ashok Malhotra (Oracle)
Chet Ensign (staff)
Patrick Durusau (individual)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu)

Observer:
Robin (staff)


Action Items status:

[closed] AI-2: Chet: check JIRA output spreadsheet capability, can it be configured.
AI-4: Chet: propose rewording of Policy statements for keywords on spec templates.
AI-5: Ashok to investigate 3rd party documentation tracking
AI-6: Jacques: open a JIRA entry to manage Conformance Guidelines and related issues (some identified here)
AI-7: Chet to clean-up the current JIRA TAB project (close old issues)
AI-8: Chet to set up the JIRA TAB component Public Reviews
AI-9: Patrick to add RFC examples of keyword use in the Keywords Guidelines


Minutes:

1. Admin:

Minutes of Aug 9th were approved.

Next meeting will be 90mn (Sept 6).

Action Items: - AI-2: Chet just sent a spreadsheet showing JIRA export. Closed.
- AI-4,AI-5, AI-6: defer to next meeting.
Discussion of TAB JIRA (https://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TAB)
- Chet to clean-up the current old issues in it, close but not delete: some still relevant (Robin).
- Jacques: so there will be a single "TAB Project" with several "components", against which there will be "issues". - Each major TAB deliverable will make up a JIRA "component".
- The Public review line of work can be a "Component", with each PR spec being a single issue, with a sequence of TAB comments for it.
- Chet to set up the JIRA component Public Reviews.

2. Keywords Guidelines:
- Goal is to have the next version of the document approved and ready to show the Board by their next meeting, mid-Oct.
- review of the latest iteration from Patrick and provided feedback.
- Patrick: made an overhaul of the doc.
- Chet/Ashok: use OASIS real examples.
- Patrick will follow up with Chet to add RFC examples of keyword use in the Keywords Guidelines.
- RFC2119 v ISO - could just make this doc RFC2119 and let TCs seek guidance when they want to go to ISO?
- Chet/Jacques: prefer to keep both keywords sets: the transition from one to the other (even if not required fpr a 1st ISO submission) remains an important need.
- Patrick: need to delete section 5 "template", add 2 examples (RFC + ISO)
- Patrick to deliver draft complete and ready for approval by next meeting

3. Public Review Process for TAB

- TAB public review feedback is one of the most valuable services it is providing to members, according to BoD.
- Chet: we can get longer review window than the 30 days PR length: all PR start with a ticket.
Chet can set up a TAB JIRA ticket with the WD link - buying TAB more time to do the review.
- stats: about 60 PR every year, of which only 12 are 1st time PR.
- Ashok: we cannot handle 60 reviews, need a selection.
- Patrick/Jacques: Problem: avoid any discriminatory selection of a subset of these - e.g. based on perceived importance.
- Chet: suggest that TAB focuses on the 1st PRs.
- Jacques: and for the 2nd and 3rd, TAB member assigned to review the 1st can do a cursory check to see if comments were addressed.
- CHet: after JIRA ticket is opened, will send an invite to ask who is available / interested in being lead reviewer for the doc.

PR PROCESS so far:
1. Chet create a PR issue for 1st time PRs (even before the official announce), and will send invite for a lead TAB reviewer.
2. If no-one volunteers, chair (J) has to resolve/handle this.
3. Lead reviewer and others, add comments to the JIRA issue, preferably using the "Review Checklist" as a guide.
4. When TAB has completed their comments, the lead reviewer consolidates and send email to the TC comment list.

- J: next time we should discuss if we want to follow a more detailed review process - e.g. focus on some specific items to review as defined in the Checklist? E.g. conf clauses is always a winner.

4. Review of Patricl's concordance of keywords, schema terms
- Patrick presented some results from a run of a commercial concordance tool. http://www.concordancesoftware.co.uk/
- Shows keyword concordance, schema terms concordance, over sample specification (TOSCA).
- can produce the web version of the concordance.
- Patrick: this would help someone coming to a spec wanting to concentrate on just some specific part, e.g. keywords and statements that use these.
- J: this could help us determine whether all the keywords are properly used in a Normative way.
- P: the input to the tool is a text file version of the specification.
- Chet: can we detect undocumented element name in a schema? Answer: no.

20130823 (last edited 2013-12-05 17:51:02 by chet.ensign)