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

Minutes TAB call (August 05, 2016)

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

Info

Time: 4pmET

Dial:

Host confcall: OASIS

US Toll Free: +1 641 715-3822

Chat room: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/tab

Agenda

1) Roll call, approval of agenda

2) Review open action items

3) Discuss priority for 2016/2017 work items

4) Review the LIGER/TCP presentation and discuss how we could help the Liger effort (see attachment to meeting event)

5) AOB

Minutes

1) Attending: Ashok, Chet, Kevin, Patrick. Jacques sent regrets.

No discussion of agenda. No objections to approval. Agenda approved.

2) Review open action items

- AI: Patrick/Ashok - review proposed Conformance Clause edits from last week against the current working draft Still open

3) Discuss priority for 2016/2017 work items

Chet noted that Laurent asked us to swap the order of the first two items and put Liger first, self-cert second.

Laurent would like to meet with the TAB to discuss ideas for supporting the Liger project. Ashok suggests that we formulate some ideas among ourselves first, then meet with Laurent.

Question about whether we should revise the sentence about the Liger white paper before sending this slide to the Board. We'll hold off sending it for now.

4) 4) Review the LIGER/TCP presentation and discuss how we could help the Liger effort

Chet reviewed the slides that were presented to the Board last Thursday.

Kevin suggested that if we extract Definitions from the TC Process into a separate document we add links from the TCP to definitions.

Ashok asked whether automatic extraction of APIs and documentation from code wouldn't require changes to coding practice. Kevin noted that most modern programming languages support that sort of extraction.

Patrick noted that on the question of code versus specification development, he wouldn't want to make people have to choose whether what they are creating is one or the other. For example, parts of the XQUERY spec could be considered code or text. Kevin was also uncertain why that would matter. Chet suggested that there might be issues based on when the contribution rights to use something kick in (when contributed versus when Committee Spec approved) or it may involve what the license allows you to do with the code versus the documentation. It does suggest that there are IPR issues buried in this topic that will have to be addressed.

Ashok asked whether participants would have to be OASIS members. Chet explained that the thinking is that anyone can fork the repository, open issues, make pull requests. However, to be a Maintainer or to be in a decision-making position, a person will have to be an OASIS member.

Patrick asked how we would distinguish ourselves in a positive way from comparable orgs, e.g. the Apache Foundation. Chet said that is a key point. One item the TAB might work on is a comparison of comparable organizations to identify what might set OASIS apart (e.g. price, process, international standardization options). Patrick specifically suggested that superior marketing in support of adoption could be a major benefit.

Ashok suggested that one thing the TAB might do is look at the idea from the perspective of a group that wants to start a project. What would the project leaders look for?

Next steps: Chet to send out minutes and clarify ideas we discussed. We will look to firm ideas up next week then plan a conversation with Laurent.

Next meeting is 12 August 2016, 2:00 PM EDT

Minutes respectfully submitted by Chet Ensign, 05 August 2016.

Chat log

Chet: Reminder that the Liger presentation is at https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/download.php/58644/TCP-streamline-LIGER-v5.ppt
Chet: Agenda:
Chet: 1) Roll call, approval of agenda

2) Review open action items

3) Discuss priority for 2016/2017 work items

4) Review the LIGER/TCP presentation and discuss how we could help the Liger effort (see attachment to meeting event)

5) AOB anonymous morphed into the red ranger.
Chet: Attending: Patrick, Ashok, Kevin, Chet
the red ranger. morphed into Kevin Mangold (NIST)
Chet: Agenda approved
Chet: Action items
Chet: AI: Patrick/Ashok - review proposed Conformance Clause edits from last week against the current working draft
Chet: Still open
Chet: Patrick is going to merge the two documents into one and then Ashok will review
Chet: 3) Discuss priority for 2016/2017 work items
Chet: Laurent reviewed and asked that we put the Liger work item on top of the list
Chet: Laurent also interested in coming to a meeting to discuss w/ us.
Chet: A: let's decide first, then meet with L
Chet: 4) Review the LIGER/TCP presentation and discuss how we could help the Liger effort (see attachment to meeting event)
Kevin Mangold (NIST): side note on the definition thing... is there a way to have the terms be a link to the definition. So one could click "Special Majority Vote" and it would bring them to the definition... or better yet, have the definition be a popup when you mouse over the temr.
Kevin Mangold (NIST): term*
Ashok: Yeah, we should be able to hyperlink
Chet: A: on extracting APIs and spec doc, won't that require changes in practice. K: many of the programming languages already have that - you just have to put the metadata into the code
Chet: K: .NET languages have it.
Chet: Most modern languages do have it now
Chet: @Kevin - re linking to definitions - yes, we're thinking of exactly that
Chet: P: not sure I'm comfortable with notion of having to pick between whether something is code or documentation.
Chet: I.E. parts of the XQuery spec could be said to be either
Chet: So wouldn't want to make people choose - having to describe their content as one or the other.
Chet: That raises the issue of how we handle the IPR issues in a way that works regardless of whether you think of what you're writing as code or documentation
Kevin Mangold (NIST): adding to .NET, Java has it too that comes with the development kit, it's called "javadoc" -- requires specially formatted code comments (metadata) for generation to succeed -- https://wiki.python.org/moin/DocumentationTools python has a page linking to external tools
Chet: K: why would it matter whether the contribution was code or documentation?
Chet: Chet tries to explain how the IPR ideas around code versus doc are different
Chet: Note to Chet - on LIger vs TC Process, point out to L that there is less requirement to go *though* tC admin to gety things done
anonymous1 morphed into Kevin Mangold (NIST)
Chet: Liger v TC Process slide
Chet: A: all members in an open source project still ahve to be members?
Chet: C: the notion is that if you want to Participate in decision making etc. you must be an OaSIS member
Chet: P: great idea but how do we distinguish ourselves from other comparable orgs like Apache Foundation or Linux Foundation?
Chet: Distinguish ourselves in a positive way
Chet: A: does the Apache Foundation offer the infrastructure & management thign?
Chet: A: and the cost to work there may be higher.
Chet: P: OASIS could develop a better marketing arm for the work done in the Open Technical Committees -
Chet: Answering that question could be one of the things the TAB does
Chet: P: notify Jamie that the IRS code is now 3 volumes instead of 2
Chet: AI to chet: summarize what ideas we had on things the TAB could do on Ligers?
Chet: Ashok: let's think about it from the customer side - "I want to start an open source project - why do I want to go to OASIS?
Sent transcript to: chet.ensign@oasis-open.org

20160805 (last edited 2016-08-05 22:23:14 by chet.ensign)