W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2002

Minutes of the 2002-04-25 teleconference

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 17:22:02 -0400
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020502212202.GF20476@jibboom.w3.org>
... are available at:


Text dump follows.




                       IRC log of ws-arch on 2002-04-25

   Timestamps are in UTC.

          hugo has changed the topic to: WSAWG telcon

          agenda+ Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (15.30 + 5)
          agenda+ Agenda review, and AOB (15.35 + 5)
          agenda+ Approval of 18 Apr telcon minutes [2] (15.40 + 5)
          agenda+ Review action items [3] (15.45 + 5)
          agenda+ Status (15.50 + 10)
          agenda+ Review of candidate Requirements draft [7,8]
          agenda+ Issues Process proposal (16.15 + 15)
          agenda+ Usage Scenarios task force formation (16.30 + 10)
          agenda+ Process for getting to closure on our Requirements
          agenda+ Wrap-up (16.55 + 5)
          IRC log: [2]http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc

          Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (15.30 + 5)


          hay bob...you ready to scribe?


          Roger scribing.
          Approve action items.
          Last weeks minutes ...

          Last week's minutes:

          Review of action items:

          DONE: ACTION: Hugo to fix the dates in the minutes and publish
          ACTION: DavidO: Send updated version of DAG0010 to the public
          list and say that it was accepted [PENDING]
          ACTION: Chris (and Zulah): send proposed wording to list and
          take it to email [PENDING]

          Editing team:

          ACTION: Zulah to determine the validity of the previous action

          Daniel - Published after lots of hard work from Chris, Abbey
          and others.
          New version, got feedback, Roger, Joe, Hugo, Chris -- published
          revised version last night.
          This version reasonably close to publication quality. Spelling,
          format, reorganized do.
          Number 7 entirely rewritten (by Daniel) to capture sense of
          Please review and send feedback soon.
          Will see if stuff comes out of this meeting and close directly
          after end of meeting.
          Joe's feedback on 6 will indeed be incorporated.
          Future drafts will not be marked "editor copy" either. That's a
          think of the past now.
          Suresh - concerned about requirement that software that
          implements part of the standard can work with software that is
          fully conformant.
          Daniel wants to discuss this further. And I'm not sure I got it
          right, actually, in the scribing.
          Need to publish today because of upcoming moratorium. More than
          20 docs for publication by web team because everyone wants to
          get stuff out.
          Daniel - points from Joe and Suresh needs to be kept but
          possibly can be deferred to next publication.
          ?? - some of words used are not measurable, like "encourage".
          Should be measurable.
          Daniel - nonmeasurable verbs appropriate for goals of group,
          which tend to be softer.
          Room for qualitative actions, particularly on part of group.
          ?? - Suggests using verb "advance" rather than "encourage" --
          because it is stronger, not necessarily more measurable.
          Hugo - not enough time to fix all comments. Need to get "good
          enough to go out".
          Daniel - we won't lose your issues, but it may not come on this
          Sharad - Mobile devices, intermittant connection -- modify
          interoperability goal.
          Daniel - Next cycle.
          Anne - AC0006 - repeated stuff. 6.2 repeated twice, 6.3 three
          Anne - looks like error, not something that needs discussion.
          Chris - we are looking for show-stoppers -- This is awful,
          wrong ... -- we have an obligation to publish something right
          Dave - Do we require new evidence to re-open? Or does
          everything remain open for discussion?
          Chris =- NO. Everything is still open for discussion at this
          point. The point of closing things so no reopening old wounds
          happens later.
          Daniel - Who is the champion for Goal 10?
          Dave Orchard,
          That is the most sparsely populated of our goals. Not much meat
          on those bones.
          Dave - I take great pride in the sparseness of that goal.
          Chris - let's get the damn thing out.
          (Sorry, he didn't really say that).
          Chris - 5 more minutes discussion, please.
          Joe - incorporating new submission is a show-stopper because it
          involves liason. Time critical to this version.
          Need something for them to reference.
          Need to do followup involving intergroup interaction, therefore
          important to get in.
          Hugo - Doesn't agree with Joe -- draft requirement -- not big
          difference whether now or later.
          Doesn't agree that is show-stopper.
          Daniel - agree is critical, but not that it is critical for
          this particular publication.
          Suresh - what is process here for what gets into doc?
          Chris - Item 9 on agenda.
          Hugo - will try to push this into the document -- Chris needs
          to check. Need to do it within 1/2 hour after call.
          Chris - it will get it in if it is humanly possible to do so in
          this time frame.

          ACTION: Hugo to insert Joe's requirement into the draft (if I
          can do it in time for Chris to send pub request)

          Chris - status of document clearly articulated, working
          Acknowledgment section has been revised, explicitly called out
          goal champions. Also list all members and corps.
          Zulah - Can you spell my name properly? Did I?
          Hugo - will note that one.

          ACTION: Hugo to fix typo in Zulah's name

          Roll call on publishing -
          scribe was just bounced out of meeting.
          Scribe is back, roll call is proceeding.


          Roll call was unanimous to accept document as is (or with last
          minute mod) for publication.
          Issues Process:
          Would like approval to make this document on issues process
          Dave - Overview: Process tries to be 1)relatively
          straightforward 2)Orginator of issue responded to on timely


          Work group review and decides whether in scope. Gets recorded,
          numbered. Status changes again when addressed.
          Issuer gets notification when status changes.
          Need firm documentation that we have addressed all issues in a
          fair and documented manner.
          Hugo - Doc says "working draft". This isn't right. "Working
          draft" is a reserved term for something else.
          It's a "draft".
          Change log for issues document will be preserved.\
          Any objections to posting this to public web page?
          Do we have to say draft? Why not just release 1.00? Hugo??
          Hugo - fine by me. Just call it a document.
          This is the issues process document. Probably complete and OK
          now, subject to some tweaking.
          This is a process document, not the documentation of issues
          Issue - there is no current link to the issues document. This
          seems to be less than desirable.
          The issue is not closed until the originator agrees? That's
          2.1.7 needs to be fleshed out. What do we have for topics?
          Goals? Freeform?


          Perhaps should delay this breakdown until we are farther along
          with the product.
          Chris - hears approval, let it be made public.
          Sasha(?) volunteers to be a member of usage scenario task
          Dave Hollander has volunteered to set up usage scenario task
          force. Dave Orchard is editing.
          Working on first draft of document.
          To be published next week.
          Zulah volunteers.
          Gerald Edgar, Katya, Paul Denning, ??

          [UC] as prefix to all email - vitural mail list

          Roger volunteers, too.


          Process for getting closure on requirements:
          Propose using email to get closure on issues rather than
          conference call. Identify an issue, send out a query.
          Each company contributes by email to straw poll on agreement,
          disagreement or "can live with it"
          2/3 in agreement would change from "draft" to "real".
          Roger - questions whether compatible with process document.
          Issues process?
          Issues process more for outside world?

          The issues process is rather expensive, if we could use it to
          assure reliable communication with non-wg issues

          Chris - we are talking about straw polls to see where we have
          issues and where agreement.
          Hugo - easy way to clearly identify easy agreement, both plus
          and minus. Publish the easy ones, then have to discuss other
          The intention here is not to replace consensus with voting, but
          to use polling to get the slam dunks.
          And identify where we need people working on the issue.

          the schema wg callled this "status queue" is this a useful
          status quo

          Chris - would like to be focussed on usage cases by the time we
          get to next f2f. So we need to get a first crack at
          requirements cleaned
          up and then add to them as usage cases indicate.
          OK? OK!
          Do we have two processes for the same thing? Issues process and
          straw poll?
          No, issues process focussed on formal resolution of external
          We are talking here about informal internal communication.
          Internally can use issue list to register formal problem with
          something so that it will definitely have to be addressed.
          The issues process seems to talk about stuff that comes in
          through external mailing list.
          However, the issues list can still be used internally for
          issues that are perceived to be important enough so that it
          needs to be tracked.
          Editors have a certain amount of latitude in assessing the
          sense of the group and capturing that.
          Mike - if there is an issue that is really big you put it to
          the issues process, not the straw poll?
          Chris - straw poll is to get stuff easily out of draft, not to
          deal with extremely contentious issues.
          Issues process can be used internally, but hopefully only for
          very substantive problems.
          Out of time.
          Scribe apologizes for lack of names -- don't know your voices
          well enough.

          I see 5 action items:
          ACTION: DavidO: Send updated version of DAG0010 to the public
          list and say that it was accepted [PENDING] [1]
          recorded in
          ACTION: Chris (and Zulah): send proposed wording to list and
          take it to email [PENDING] [2]
          recorded in
          ACTION: Zulah to determine the validity of the previous action
          item [3]
          recorded in
          ACTION: Hugo to insert Joe's requirement into the draft (if I
          can do it in time for Chris to send pub request) [4]
          recorded in
          ACTION: Hugo to fix typo in Zulah's name [5]
          recorded in


        Mark Jones
        Ayse Dilber
BEA Systems     David Orchard
Boeing Company  Gerald Edgar
Carnegie Mellon Katia Sycara
Roger Cutler
Cisco Systems   Sandeep Kumar
        Yin-Leng Husband
        Kevin Perkins
        Dave Hollander
Hans-Peter Steiert
Don Robertson
        Mike Ballantyne
        Waqar Sadiq
        Joseph Hui
Zulah Eckert
        Heather Kreger
Intalio Inc     Bob Lojek
Intel Corp      Sharad Garg
MartSoft Corp.  Jin Yu
Microsoft Corp  Allen Brown
MITRE Corp      Paul Denning
        Michael Mahan
Nortel Networks Abbie Barbir
Planetfred, Inc Mark Baker
        Sinisa Zimek
Software AG     Michael Champion
Sterling Commerce       Suresh Damodaran
Sun Microsystems        Chris Ferris
Sun Microsystems        Mark Hapner
Sybase, Inc.    Himagiri Mukkamala
Anne Thomas Manes
T-Nova Deutsche Telekom Innovationsgesellschaft Jens Meinkoehn
W. W. Grainger, Inc.    Tom Carroll
W. W. Grainger, Inc.    Daniel Austin
        Hugo Haas
        David Booth
Waveset Tech    Darran Rolls

Mario Jeckle
        Marcel Jemio
Nilo Mitra
Intel Corp      Joel Munter
        Steve Vinoski
Microsoft Corp  Henrik Nielsen
MITRE Corp      James Davenport
Oracle Corp     Jeff Mischkinsky
Rogue Wave Sw   Patrick Thompson
SeeBeyond Technology Corp       Alan Davies
Sun Microsystem Doug Bunting
TIBCO Software. Scott Vorthmann
Prasad Yendluri
XQRL Inc.       Tom Bradford

        Mike Brumbelow
Artesia Tech    Dipto Chakravarty
Cisco Systems   Krishna Sankar
Computer Assoc  Igor Sedukhin
CrossWeave, Inc Timothy Jones
France Telecom  Shishir Garg
        Jim Knutson
        Eric Newcomer
        Srinivas Pandrangi
        Alex Cheng
Glen Daniels
Tom Jordahl
MartSoft Corp.  Jun Chen
Rogue Wave Sw   David Noor
Software AG     Nigel Hutchison
Thomson Corp    Hao He
VeriSign, Inc.  Michael Mealling
XQRL Inc.       Daniela Florescu


   1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Apr/0104.html
   2. http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc
   3. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/04/18-minutes
   4. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/04/wd-wsa-issues-process-20020424.html
   5. http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T19-44-54
   6. http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T19-45-02
   7. http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T19-45-59
   8. http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T20-11-25
   9. http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T20-13-28
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 17:22:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:55 UTC