Minutes TAB call (January 26, 2018)

Action items

- AI Everyone: review Stefan's last version of the spread sheet and provide feedback on the columns/fields versus the information available in the standards table

Agenda

1) Roll call

2) Approve agenda

3) Approve minutes

4) Status of action items

5) Progress on the editor's manual

6) Progress on the Google sheet

7) AOB

Minutes

1) Roll call

Jacques Durand
Patrick Durusau
Chet Ensign
Stefan Hagen

Invited expert:
Ashok Malhotra

2) Approve agenda

No discussion. No objections. Agenda approved.

3) Approve minutes
Minutes for Jan. 12: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201801/msg00025.html

No discussion. No objections. Minutes approved.

4) Status of action items

- AI Chet: draft message inviting feedback on first 3 sections of editor's handbook

Completed. Closed.

- AI Everyone: review Stefan's last version of the spread sheet and provide feedback on the columns/fields versus the information available in the standards table

Open.

5) Progress on editor's manual

Call for comments has prompted feedback. We reviewed the comments.

Chet will prepare a comment resolution log and capture our decisions there. Detailed comments in chat log.

6) Progress on Google sheet

Tabled.

7) AOB

No other business raised.

Next meeting on 09 February 2018 at 3:00 PM eastern. Minutes submitted by Chet Ensign on February 1st 2018.

Chat log

Chet: Agenda:

1) Roll call

2) Approve agenda

3) Approve minutes

4) Status of action items

5) Progress on the editor's manual

6) Progress on the Google sheet

7) AOB

Chet: Draft minutes for Jan. 12: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201801/msg00025.html
Chet: Open AIs:
- AI Chet: draft message inviting feedback on first 3 sections of editor's handbook

- AI Everyone: review Stefan's last version of the spread sheet and provide feedback on the columns/fields versus the information available in the standards table
anonymous morphed into Patrick
Chet: News: Trey Darley has put his name forward to fill the open TAB seat
Chet: Attending: Stefan, Ashok, Patrick, Jacques, Chet
Chet: 2. Agenda
Chet: No discussion. Any objs. No . Agenda approved.
Chet: 3. minutes
Chet: Any discussion? No. Any objs? No. Minutes approved.
Chet: - AI Chet: draft message inviting feedback on first 3 sections of editor's handbook
Chet: Closed.
Chet: - AI Everyone: review Stefan's last version of the spread sheet and provide feedback on the columns/fields versus the information available in the standards table
Chet: Open.
Chet: 5) Progress on the editor's manual
Chet: Note - want to avoid portraying editors as puppets of the TC
Chet: Time commitment - can be highly variable
Chet: Don't want to scare people off
Chet: wide latitude - don't agree - appreciate the flexibility
Chet: e.g. DSS is re-engineering their specs significantly
Chet: P: people don't say what flexibility they want. e.g. what tools you use. use what you want but OASIS requires specific outputs. Couldn't do an entire standard in SVG for example.
Chet: P: relieving TCs of uncertainty - what would help would be to give TCs the way to solve specific problems (e.g. do graphics) so they wouldn't have to figure it out themselves.
Chet: A: is he talking about format or tools or ??? - C: unclear
Chet: P: some things - e.g. your minutes - probably should have less flexibility
Chet: S: the community learns right? what we are doing now is what we know now. next round, we can put out more specific guidance
Chet: J: as long as the rules are followed, we have not been too prescriptive
Chet: S: people get passionate about seeing the process rules as barriers. But they are there to solve problems in advance.
Chet: Should we follow up with Bret to get more feedback? S: the comment has been considered - we are still looking for a case where this is generally applicable
Chet: Comment about # of editors. We agree that it totally depends on the specification / document.
Chet: Depends on size of TC, how spec is assembled, how close it is to done, etc.
Chet: A: it is helpful to have at least 2 editors - e.g. in the situation where a single editor moves on and a new editor must ramp up and start again
Chet: A: two co-editors can divide the work and you have some continuity
Chet: S: maybe put in that TCs should *consider* having more than 1 editor
Chet: S: for the benefits provided
Chet: Editorial Process
Chet: Toby - comment on value of WD for organizing meetings and reviews.
Chet: Toby - it is how we achieve consensus within a TC
Chet: Agree and make some proposed edits
Chet: S: problem - someone who has paid no attention to discussion and then re-raise settled questions in their review , it is a problem. If you can avoid it by hints to chairs/editors on how to raise topics to the TC. E.g. highlighting where decisions have already been made.
Chet: So we'll try to capture his point in the paragraph
Chet: How to get the TC to own it and be responsible for it
Chet: Toby comment on line numbering
Chet: S: hate the line numbers!
Chet: Breaks things! If the document is well structured (5 levels / short headers) you can get to the comment
Chet: If people can't discuss on that structural leve, should be able to communicate edits / suggestions equally well
Chet: Idea - guidance - if you are writing long sections, line numbers help - short sections, they get in the way
Chet: A: would this be covered in section 4, not here? Yes.
Chet: S: volunteers to draft pros/cons of line nubmering
Chet: Document Structure
Chet: Toby's comment on 3rd paragraph
Chet: A: suggest taking that paragraph out. Isn't adding much.
Chet: S: sort of a mom and apple pie comment
Chet: Toby believes normative machine readable authoritative state should be earlier
Chet: S: many TCs profit from checking how tools can support this
Chet: S: might give notice up front that you are likely to be writing more than prose - you are also creating machine readable artifacts - look for ways to reduce those conflicts
Chet: S: also can we include some examples? it would be useful to show what other TCs have done
Chet: S: "Note if you mix in machine readable stuff, there is some best practice / prior art and we include later
Chet: S: volunteers to try to edit that section
Chet: Toby comment about guidance on whether an updated version # is normative or not
Chet: S: somebody has to read it
Chet: S: there should be a sentence to help them to deal with fast changing specs - we should add something to address this
Chet: P: In ISO, a dated reference is superceded automatically
Chet: S: we should write that there as an example
Jacques D(Fujitsu): Guys, I have to go. Will post my comments on the tab list. Thanks
Chet: P: it depends on whether it is a normative or informative reference. If it is normative and the new spec enables new capabilities, then I can see a situation where it would break the spec
Chet: S: so first - find out what changed. Does it affect your use cases or not? Then the TC can decide how to handle it. E.g. date specifications - people want to constrain it more. So (a) analysis of what changed and then (b) look at it with an eye to what you want out of it.
Chet: S: also note that people get annoyed when they click a ref and find an 'outdated by' document at the other end

20180126 (last edited 2018-02-01 22:12:19 by chet.ensign)