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

Minutes TAB call (January 27, 2017)

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

Info

Time: 2pmET

Dial:

Host confcall: OASIS

US Toll Free: +1 641 715-3822

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

Action items assigned in meeting

- AI: Jacques to draft a one page memo presenting the nimble review suggestion

Agenda

1) Roll call

2) Approval of agenda

3) Approval of minutes December 2nd:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/email/archives/201612/msg00008.html

4) Status of public reviews

5 new OData specs are in review, however they are .01 releases. We covered them in their original rounds.

UBL 2.2, Business Document Naming and Design Rules Version 1.1, and UBL 2.1 JSON Alternative Representation Version 1.0 going out for first reviews but again, follow ons to existing works.

5) Status of open action items

- AI: Patrick - update and share baseball example.

- AI: Ashok - incorporate the base ball example, make final edits, and then send around for a final review.

6) Discuss nimble review draft and decide on next steps
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/document.php?document_id=59672

7) Review of presentation on Open Projects
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201611/msg00011.html

Minutes

1) Roll call

Attending: Ashok, Jacques, Patrick, Chet. Regrets Kevin

2) Agenda

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

3) Approval of minutes December 2nd:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/email/archives/201612/msg00008.html

No discussion. No objections to unanimous approval. Minutes approved.

4) Status of public reviews

No reviews that require TAB review underway at this time

5) Status of open action items

- AI: Patrick - update and share baseball example.
Closed.

- AI: Ashok - incorporate the base ball example, make final edits, and then send around for a final review.
Closed.

6) Discuss nimble review draft and decide on next steps
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/document.php?document_id=59672

Jacques suggests sending a one page summary instead of the full document. Basically 3.2.1 - a description of the proposed process.

Discussed how this fits w/ Patrick's proposal for on-going review. Could see that the board might see no reason not to have multiple paths through the standards project that a TC could follow.

Consensus: we'll send the summary and mention that we're thinking about a possible alternative review idea that we'll put forward

AI to Jacques: prep the one-page summary write up for sending to the Process Committee.

7) Review of presentation on Open Projects

This is the slide deck that Carol and Laurent have been reviewing with open source experts and representatives.

On topic of sending material on to de jure organizations, Patrick pointed to WARC, effectively the web archiving standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_ARChive). Notes that this is effectively a file format description. Says we shouldn't assume that they necessarily have a detailed criteria for what can become a standard.

Jacques asks whether the project as envisioned offers more flexibility in development. E.g. could non-OASIS members observe at PMC meetings.

Notes that either the nimble or the continuous review process could fit well with this approach.

On the bullet point 'happy lawyers' and the comments about legal review at Eclipse or Apache, Patrick asks if we have insight into how much they really do beyond confirming that anyone who made a pull request had agreed to a CLA? Chet to check with Robin.

Next meeting date/time wait on consensus on mailing list. Either Thursday, Feb. 9th at 5:00 eastern or Friday, Feb. 10th at 3:00 eastern.

Minutes respectfully submitted 30 January 2017 by Chet Ensign.

=== Chat log ===
Chet: I will dial in in just a moment.
Chet: Attending: Ashok, Patrick, Chet
Chet: Regrets Kevin
Chet: Jacques joins
Chet: Discuss agenda.
Chet: Look at final draft from Ashok and be ready to sign off at next meeting
Chet: Ashok asks about moving time to avoid more conflicts. OK with moving one hour later.
Chet: Chet to propose to email list
Chet: Agenda approved.
Chet: Minutes Dec.2nd
Chet: No discussion, no objs. Minutes approved.
Chet: Public reviews - nothing to do at this time
Chet: Action items
Chet: - AI: Patrick - update and share baseball example.
Chet: Closed
Chet: - AI: Ashok - incorporate the base ball example, make final edits, and then send around for a final review.
Chet: Closed
Chet: 6) Nimble review
Chet: Discussing next steps.
Chet: Chet suggests submit formally to Board Process Committee
Chet: Jacques: suggests sending a summary of the document
Chet: Basically send 3.2.1 - the process
Chet: Send a short, summary version and reference this longer document.
Chet: Discussing how this fits w/ Patrick's proposal for on-going review
Chet: The board might see no reason not to have multiple paths through the standards project that a TC could fix
Chet: A TC might be more comfortable with an iterative development process
Chet: So not an either or but be a choice, an option
Chet: Consensus: we'll send the summary and mention that we're thinking about a possible alternative review idea that we'll put forward
Chet: AI to Jacques: prep the one-page summary write up for sending to the Process Cmte
Chet: Jaques will be unavailable until end of day in two weeks.
Chet: Traveling back from east coast
Chet: Propose next meeting 2/9 Thursday at 5:00 eastern

Patrick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_ARChive

Chet: J: could there be a way to have interim involvement - eg could some developer listen in on a PMC meeting
Chet: The nimble / continuous review process could fit well with this
Chet: We might see some multi-part work products that would come out of this
Chet: so you might get comments on both code and spec

Patrick: stepping away for a moment

Chet: ok
Chet: reviewers could comment and team could work on it simultaneously
Chet: the concept of "work product" will likely be stretched
Chet: J: you might drop code out of the package when it goes into the OASIS standards track work flow

Patrick: back

Chet: should be flexible when progressing a work product beyond the open project / release
Chet: may want to think a bit more on the wrok product side - what part wouldn't make sense as a standard
Chet: Patrick: can we get more detail about what Apache / Eclipse lawyers do? Besides getting the representations from people that they have the rights to submit code to a project

20170127 (last edited 2017-01-30 16:22:32 by chet.ensign)