20070503 Interoperability Working Group Creation Review Minutes
From MemberWiki
URL: http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/20070503_Interoperability_Working_Group_Creation_Review_Minutes
These are the minutes from the special all-Member conference call to discuss the proposed Interoperability Working Group, whose charter can be found at: http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/Interoperability_Charter.
Attendees
- Jon Ferraiolo, IBM
- Bill Roy, Openwave
- David Boloker, IBM
- Coach Wei <coach(at)nexaweb.com>
- Erwan Paccard <epaccard(at)ilog.fr>
- Kevin Hakman <khakman(at)tibco.com>
- Mike Pinette <mikep(at)zend.com>
- Stas Malyshev <stas(at)zend.com>
Minutes
(Jon started with overview of how this phone call is required by our Development Process and the history of the charter and discussion so far. Discussion of the intent of this phone call to provide an opportunity for people to ask questions and express opinions in a group setting so everyone can hear what everyone else is saying. In terms of history, the charter was first developed in December. announced formally on Jan. 29 and discussed soon thereafter within the Interoperability Committee. Then no changes until the face-to-face meeting, where we made a number of decisions, so that charter was updated to reflect those decisions. The Interoperability Committee reviewed those changes sometime in April.)
Jon: Any comments or questions about the purpose of this meeting?
(no comments or questions)
Jon: I will step through the sections.
Jon: (After Jon gives an executive summary of the Schedule section) Any comments or questions on the Schedule section?
(no comments or questions)
Jon: (After Jon gives an executive summary of the Mission and Scope section) Any comments or questions on the Mission and Scope section?
Kevin: How is the mission and scope of releases of the Hub managed? By having the specifications go through the Development Process and have member review and voting?
Jon: Yes. The WG decides on what goes into which version of any Hub specs. Then follow the Development Process.
Kevin: OK, that answers my question.
Jon: Any other comments or questions on Mission and Scope?
(no comments or questions)
Jon: The Work Plan has five sub-sections. Let's go over each in turn.
Jon: The Hub 1.0 section reflects what we decided at the face-to-face meeting. The main changes with the updated charter involved moving the globals and markup scanner topics into the futures section. Any comments or questions on the Mission and Scope section?
(no comments or questions)
Jon: The future versions of the Hub section mentions the globals and markup scanner and then mentions the possibility of new features from the Communications Hub TF efforts, plus a possible "security hub" and "data hub". The last paragraph needs highlighting. It is an attempt to balance between making the charter flexible enough so that the WG does not have to be rechartered if it finds a need to pursue new features but sufficient boundary on the types of features to prevent the group from having a carte blanche. Any comments or questions on the Mission and Scope section?
(no comments or questions)
Jon: Any comments or questions on the Registry section?
(no comments or questions)
Jon: Any comments or questions on the Best Practices section?
(no comments or questions)
Jon: The section and standard event names and payloads was added. The Interoperability Committee reviewed this section and agreed on the words that are in the charter now. This area might be a focus for the Interoperability WG in the next six months because we might achieve greater interoperability benefit by defining standard events than adding new features to the Hub. One simple example is a set of OpenAjax drag/drop events rather than having each toolkit define their own, such as DojoDrag and TIBCODrop. The Hub doesn't help much with interoperability if toolkits have to know about all of the events of all of the other toolkits.
Erwan: How is the list of events chosen?
Jon: I assume members of the Interoperability WG would make proposals and the WG would discuss and make decisions. Manifested within specifications.
Erwan: Fine with me. Thanks.
Jon: Any other comments or questions?
(no comments or questions)
Jon: Any comments or questions on the Coordination section?
(no comments or questions)
Jon: The schedule is just informative and non-binding to give people an idea of what we are thinking might be the timing of various activities. Any comments or questions?
(no comments or questions)
Jon: The success criteria section is a standard part of the boilerplate to help the WG have focus on what it is trying to accomplish. (Jon repeats some of the bullets in that section) Any comments or questions?
(no comments or questions)
Jon: The chair, expected members, operational rules reflect how things have been going so far in the committee. Any comments or questions?
(no comments or questions)
Jon: Does anyone see any reason why they might vote against the charter?
(no one speaks up)
Jon: Does anyone see any problems or objections that they want to register?
(no one speaks up)
Jon: OK, given no negative comments, I will talk to the Steering Committee later today about starting member voting on this charter tomorrow and Steering Committee voting the week after that. Thanks to everyone for joining the call and helping us with the important process meeting.
