=============================================================
Minutes TAB call (May 1, 2015)
=============================================================


Info
Time: 2pmET
Dial:
Host confcall: Fujitsu
US Toll Free: 877-995-3314
US Toll/International: 210-339-1806


Agenda

1. Admin and general status: - Approval Minutes Apr 24 (to be posted) - Board meeting 4/27 (quick report )

2. Review/approve TAB recommendations report to open-source initiative from staff (uploaded 4/24):
https://www.oasis- open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/document.php?document_id=55530

3. TAB reorg:
TAB charter : initiate discussion on updates, to be proposed to Board before July.


Roll:
Kevin Mangold (NIST)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu)
Ashok Malhotra (Oracle)
Chet Ensign (staff)
Patrick Durusau (individual)

excused:
Gershon Janssen (Board liaison)


Action Items:

AI: (TAB) TAB to review draft response to OSS initiative from staff, add content to it. Jacques to produce a revision after this meeting.

AI: (TAB) TAB to review charter between now and the July meeting.
let Gershon know we are going to do that and get proposed changes to Board by their June meeting. Chet to load a base copy of the charter into the document repository.

AI: Patrick to investigate how we could achieve something similar to commenting technique in IETF (needs XSLT?)
--> #315

AI: (still open) Ashok to investigate W3C "annotations"
--> #316

AI: (still open) (Jacques/Ashok) improve on the conf clause template + include the "surroundings" ? (conf clause section structure)
--> #317

AI: (new) Jacques to show/discuss w Patrick UBL mix of non-machine processable + processable.


Minutes:

1. Admin and general status:
- Approval Minutes Apr 24 : No discussion. No objections. Minutes approved.
- Board meeting 4/27 (quick report ) : Jacques recaps. Raised 2 points with board: (a) does this affect or limit TABs ability to audit projects / activities, (b) the proposal does nothing to help attract more members to the TAB. Repeated our interest in working closely with the board & staff regardless of the type of organization we have.
- Ashok: if the TAB is part of the board and one of the staff is leading it, it is not going to be independent and not going to be able to be critical of board/organization. That's a bad thing.
- J: the board might not have thought through all the implications of their motion. May still be room to adjust the motion. Gave the impression that July meetings will be when everything could be [re]adjusted & finalized.
- J: we might have, in the charter revision, an explicit mention that the TAB can propose an audit activity on projects, etc.

2. Review/approve TAB recommendations report to open-source initiative from staff (uploaded 4/24):
https://www.oasis- open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/document.php?document_id=55530
- Ashok: dialed in to the board meeting where they approved the initiative. so what else do we have to do?
- Chet and J: the board signed off on the high-level approach the staff submitted. Still process aspects to sort out.
- Patrick: shouldn't we deliver a doc with concrete things to think about? any deliverable to the board should be a substantive deliverable. Even if we do it in parts. But something substantial (e.g. what are some of the problems that we have seen in open source projects), not necessarily just answers to the 3 questions posed. e.g. [to staff] - here are problems that we have seen, have you all thought through how you will handle these problems?
- Chet: for timing purposes, TAB should be aware that staff will be working through implementation details over course of May. So input can come in over the next couple of weeks and be useful.
- J: we could consider this draft as a first input to the process and expect that we'll provide additional feedback over time. What I would like to clarify today is whether what is in the document is agreed as the first consensus of the TAB or whether we need to do more work on it before sending it out.
Recap - this document is the first presentation but that more should be added over time.
- Everyoneto review the doc (questions and answers).

Going over staff questions in the draft:

- Q1 - how will it be received by members and by open source advocates ? Jacques recaps the positive answer from the draft.[11:34]
- Patrick: suggest: "The initiative will be well received." Also, if we want to make those points, I would not talk about how different groups view each other. Lots of viewpoints likely. Like rather the statement about the purpose of an OS project at OASIS. It is a way of saying something positive about what the OASIS OS prj should be doing. So a) let's not speculate about other peoples point of view and b) let's focus on what the OS project does for OASIS.
- J: if we think this document should be extended with more use cases, that's an AI to all of us to extend the report from the TAB with potential issues with the initiative.

- Q2 - any potential downsides we need to consider? Jacques recaps the possible frictions he has observed.
- P: This is the strongest part of the draft. OS projects encourage people to fork projects - though I've not seen people fork a standard. See that there is a risk of people forking the OS pro and forcing conflicts with the TC/standard . should OASIS allow forking?
- J: reuse is not the same as fork.
- P: all github projects can be forked.
- Kevin: couple of things. First - OASIS shouldn't disallow but the TC should be able to say "do not fork". Second - doesn't always mean that you'll end up with something not aligned w/the standard. E.g. a fork could be used to test certain proposed solutions to a need. Also, let's say you have a framework standard - e.g. biometrics - there could be the main branch but then have specialized forks from the main branch (e.g. fingerprint fork, iris scan fork). At least, allow forking in the beginning and see how things work out and see if we have a problem.
- J: not against forks, as long as they do not conflict with the standard. So we should not be concerned about that with the OASIS open src proposal. In fact, my impression is that OSS foundations are more concerned with forking than we should be, as they deliver products, and forking is always a concern in that context (risks about compatibility/interoperability of the variants)

- Q3 - is anything missing from the documents?
J: as noted 3rd party content being pulled in is one issue. any comments?

3. TAB reorg:
TAB charter : initiate discussion on updates, to be proposed to Board before July.

- Chet: Here is the link to the present TAB charter -> https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tab/charter.php
- Chet: suggest we let Gershon know we are going to do that and get proposed changes to them by their June meeting. we know that at least one fact has to change (who can/not be TAB chair) - so let's take that as our opportunity to open the whole thing up for review and surgery.
- Chet to load a base copy of the charter into the document repository.

- J: recap next steps: like to have an approved, more complete response of the OS document by end of month
2) propose changes to tab charter by end of month.

Other:
- Next meeting in 3 weeks (May 22).

20150501 (last edited 2015-05-21 20:50:06 by chet.ensign)