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:
Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (15.30 + 5)
hay 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 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]
Editing team:
ACTION: Zulah to determine the validity of the previous action item
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.
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 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.
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 public.
Dave - Overview: Process tries to be 1)relatively straightforward 2)Orginator of issue responded to on timely basis.
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?
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, ??
[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 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.
the schema wg callled this "status queue" is this a useful here?
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.
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.
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