- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 17:22:02 -0400
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
... are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/04/25-minutes
Text dump follows.
Regards,
Hugo
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
IRC log of ws-arch on 2002-04-25
Timestamps are in UTC.
[hugo]
hugo has changed the topic to: WSAWG telcon
[hugo]
Agenda:
[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Apr/0104
.html
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
[hugo]
---
Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (15.30 + 5)
[chris]
agenda?
bob?
[DaveH]
hay bob...you ready to scribe?
[bobLojek]
yes
[Roger]
Roger scribing.
Approve action items.
Last weeks minutes ...
[hugo]
Last week's minutes:
[3]http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/04/18-minutes
[Roger]
Approved.
Review of action items:
[hugo]
DONE: ACTION: Hugo to fix the dates in the minutes and publish
them
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]
[Roger]
Editing team:
[hugo]
ACTION: Zulah to determine the validity of the previous action
item
[Roger]
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
group.
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
cycle.
Sharad - Mobile devices, intermittant connection -- modify
interoperability goal.
Daniel - Next cycle.
Anne - AC0006 - repeated stuff. 6.2 repeated twice, 6.3 three
times.
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
now.
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.
[hugo]
ACTION: Hugo to insert Joe's requirement into the draft (if I
can do it in time for Chris to send pub request)
[Roger]
Chris - status of document clearly articulated, working
document.
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.
[hugo]
ACTION: Hugo to fix typo in Zulah's name
[Roger]
Roll call on publishing -
scribe was just bounced out of meeting.
Scribe is back, roll call is proceeding.
[MarkB]
applause!
[Roger]
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
public.
Dave - Overview: Process tries to be 1)relatively
straightforward 2)Orginator of issue responded to on timely
basis.
[hugo]
Document:
[4]http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/04/wd-wsa-issues-process-20
020424.html
[Roger]
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
itself.
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
right.
2.1.7 needs to be fleshed out. What do we have for topics?
Goals? Freeform?
[chris]
s/2.1.7/2.1.1.7/
[Roger]
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
force.
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, ??
[DaveH]
[UC] as prefix to all email - vitural mail list
[Roger]
Roger volunteers, too.
[chris]
zulah
gerald
katia
pauld
sharad
roger
darran
ayse
[Roger]
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?
[DaveH]
The issues process is rather expensive, if we could use it to
assure reliable communication with non-wg issues
[Roger]
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
ones.
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.
[DaveH]
the schema wg callled this "status queue" is this a useful
here?
status quo
[Roger]
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
comments.
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.
[RRSAgent]
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
[5]http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T19-44-54
ACTION: Chris (and Zulah): send proposed wording to list and
take it to email [PENDING] [2]
recorded in
[6]http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T19-45-02
ACTION: Zulah to determine the validity of the previous action
item [3]
recorded in
[7]http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T19-45-59
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
[8]http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T20-11-25
ACTION: Hugo to fix typo in Zulah's name [5]
recorded in
[9]http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T20-13-28
Attendance
Present
---------------------------------
AT&T
Mark Jones
AT&T
Ayse Dilber
BEA Systems David Orchard
Boeing Company Gerald Edgar
Carnegie Mellon Katia Sycara
ChevronTexaco
Roger Cutler
Cisco Systems Sandeep Kumar
Compaq
Yin-Leng Husband
Compaq
Kevin Perkins
Contivo
Dave Hollander
DaimlerChrysler
Hans-Peter Steiert
Documentum
Don Robertson
EDS
Mike Ballantyne
EDS
Waqar Sadiq
Exodus
Joseph Hui
Hewlett-Packard
Zulah Eckert
IBM
Heather Kreger
Intalio Inc Bob Lojek
Intel Corp Sharad Garg
MartSoft Corp. Jin Yu
Microsoft Corp Allen Brown
MITRE Corp Paul Denning
Nokia
Michael Mahan
Nortel Networks Abbie Barbir
Planetfred, Inc Mark Baker
SAP
Sinisa Zimek
Software AG Michael Champion
Sterling Commerce Suresh Damodaran
Sun Microsystems Chris Ferris
Sun Microsystems Mark Hapner
Sybase, Inc. Himagiri Mukkamala
Systinet
Anne Thomas Manes
T-Nova Deutsche Telekom Innovationsgesellschaft Jens Meinkoehn
W. W. Grainger, Inc. Tom Carroll
W. W. Grainger, Inc. Daniel Austin
W3C
Hugo Haas
W3C
David Booth
Waveset Tech Darran Rolls
Regrets
----------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler
Mario Jeckle
DISA
Marcel Jemio
Ericsson
Nilo Mitra
Intel Corp Joel Munter
IONA
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
webMethods
Prasad Yendluri
XQRL Inc. Tom Bradford
Absent
------------------------------------------
Apple
Mike Brumbelow
Artesia Tech Dipto Chakravarty
Cisco Systems Krishna Sankar
Computer Assoc Igor Sedukhin
CrossWeave, Inc Timothy Jones
France Telecom Shishir Garg
IBM
Jim Knutson
IONA
Eric Newcomer
Ipedo
Srinivas Pandrangi
Ipedo
Alex Cheng
Macromedia
Glen Daniels
Macromedia
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
References
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