2007 March Members Meeting Minutes

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Wiki pages for the OpenAjax members meeting of March 22-23, 2007

The following are the various wiki pages that document the OpenAjax Alliance's members meeting that occurred March 22-23, 2007:


Attendees

See Registration: /member/wiki/2007_March_Members_Meeting_Registration

On the phone for parts of the meeting:

  • David Frankel <david.frankel(at)sap.com>
  • Louenas Hamdi <louenas.hamdi(at)sap.com>
  • Kin Blas <jblas(at)adobe.com>
  • Frederik De Keukelaere <EB41704(at)jp.ibm.com>
  • Naohiko Uramoto <uramoto(at)jp.ibm.com>

Slides

Here are all of the slide decks from the meeting. Pointers to these same slide decks can be found inline within the minutes in the relevant sections:

Minutes

Thursday, March 22

  • 9:00am - 9:30am - Welcome, Opening Remarks
  • 9:30am - noon - Ajax Security
  • noon - 1:00pm - Lunch
  • 1:00pm - 2:30pm - Status reports from IDE Integration, Server Integration and Communications Hub Task Forces
  • 2:30pm - 3:30pm - Where we stand with OpenAjax Hub and InteropFest
  • 3:30pm - 3:45pm - Break
  • 4:00pm - 6:00pm - Where we should go with Hub, IDEs, Servers, Communications Hub

Welcome and Opening Remarks

  • When: 9:00am - 9:30am
  • Moderators: Steering Committee
  • Topic: Steering Committee perspective on where we are and where we should be going



David Boloker, Mike Pinette, Mike Milinkovich and Kevin Hakman spoke and congratulated us on our accomplishments in the first 10 months.

Ajax Security

xhr authentication problem - multiple simultaneous requests for (basic) authentication, expired connections needing re-authentication

need protocols and infrastructure that allow application-transparent (re-)authentication for Ajax apps

desirable to

  • support many authentication schemes
  • support federated authentication
  • is usable (Java security turned out to be unusable)

standard library component? suresh: yes

Solutions discussed varied from client-side framework to possible negotiation with container?

Adam: Similar problem discussed last time with maximum allowed browser connections. Perhaps a common solution on the client could mediate xhr requests?

Jon: Would it be appropriate to address this in the openajax hub? Or perhaps just in a library?

Alex: Very concerned about spoofing attacks, need to tie authentication with a particular widget or ui

Suresh: Solution must not increase attack surface. Some of these problems exist already.

Mary Ellen: cannot do this without a trusted ui

Jon: Talked with Doug Crockford (Yahoo) about security and invited him, but he had to be in Redmond today, talking to MS about security issues. Doug is talking to other browser vendors about this. Shel: Security TF is meeting today for the first time, may have more pressing issues. Thinks starting with assuming a single sign-on.

Suresh: wants to assemble a list of problems. Agrees that this may not be most important.

Jon: Wants to make sure everyone is aware of security issues. Deep dive can occur in TF.

IBM person: This problem occurs even with single sign-on

Kevin: need to look for something that is convenient but does not increase attack surface

MikeM: Like cardspace? helps prevent pfishing

Larry: How do you know which widget is authenticating with which server?

Solution components:

  • signaling components
  • actual authentication
  • signaling status
  • return code convention

Client-side: browser and Ajax framework need to work together

Maybe new scheme for 401

Shel: Maybe authentication is not first thing to work on. Instead at first assume server manages it.

Multiple fragments in a mashup - sometimes communication with server is managed on client, sometimes handled indirectly via server.

Whiteboard list of issues:

  • Auth
    • client trusted ui
    • server
    • federation
  • code injection
  • XSS
  • site/domain restrictions
  • FUD management
  • security education
    • validation esp. on server

Larry: is there a uniform way this group can address the problem? each member uses different server-side technologies. Perhaps we give best practices?

Ted: Here are some red flags (education)


Component model discussion

Q: What is the level of granularity? And how hard is it to specify policy?

Consensus that this is interesting and worth pursuing in security task force

Larry: Must be easy for developer to assemble and understand (e.g. MS Zones not well understood)

Mike: Afraid of building yet another component model. Does OpenAjax want to do this?

Q: just a problem of terminology?

Coach: W3C CDF spec, addresses this problem on markup level

Jon: What can we accomplish today? Perhaps we can't improve security without improving browsers. Perhaps we focus on education/FUD.


Resolution: Security TF should use whiteboard list of issues as starting points for discussion, then discuss which activities to pursue, priorities of those activities, and flesh out the activities.

Lunch

Task Force reports

  • When: 1:00pm - 2:30pm
  • Moderators: Coach Wei, Kevin Hakman, and Ric Smith
  • Each task force reports on accomplishments to date and recommended next steps

IDE Integration Workgroup (Kevin)

Shel: define metadata descriptions? Kevin: primary focus has been on authoring

Shel: development time vs. assembly/deploy time? Kevin: strategy to specify intermediate format to describe widget, actual process is up to developer. IDEs would import and then create tools around it. Also create a wish list for future function. Not dealing with deployment time.

Jon: Larger mission? Integration working group, not just IDE?

From Kevin's slide deck:

  • Recommendation: Formation of IDE Integration Workgroup
    • Write charter
    • Seek formal adoption of charter by members and Steering Committee
    • Transfer candidate requirements and research to Workgroup for further refinement, specification and sample implementation

Resolution: Start work on proposed working group charter right away, see if we can agree on scope and tasks, probably form a Working Group. Need further discussion about whether it would be a more narrow "IDE Integration WG" which focuses on IDE issues but looks for generalization opportunities or a more broad "Integration WG" which focuses on general design-time metadata which makes sure IDE issues are addressed but also is convinced there is a reasonable general approach. Work this issue out as charter is developed.

Communications Hub (Coach)

Craig: Are APIs intended for push as well as all other connections?

Jon: need to think through messaging across client and server,but perhaps they won't all happen at OpenAjax

Coach: TF has worked on client side only until last month

Joe: What about two windows or tabs sharing connections?

Kevin: Round-robin approach is an option

Kevin: separate communications wg group might be better because it involves different expertise. result could still be part of hub

Jon: too soon to start work on charter

Coach: new protocol would be a huge task, may not be appropriate for openajax

Coach: protocol would be on top of HTTP

Chris: Cannot assume HTTP?

Jon: something on top of an existing network mechanism; not replace HTTP, e.g. round robin

Jon: Server side, available in different languages, models

From Coach's slide deck, two options to consider:

  1. Proposal/recommendation to be part of “Interoperability Working Group”based on current task force activities?
    • Most of the required work is done for this
  2. Send proposal/recommendation to form a Communications Working Group?
    • include part of current server task force?
    • Do some work related to protocol?
    • Or even including some server side work?

Resolution: Consensus was that probably we will want to form a separate Communications Working Group due to specialized nature of the topic area. Right now, too early to start to work on a WG charter, but maybe in a month or two we should start. The activity (task force, then WG) would address all areas in the communications stack: client-side, server-side, and messaging protocols. Most likely area that makes sense for OpenAjax is client-side. If any server-side efforts, would pursue language-independent approaches. Messaging protocol might be best approach for achieving language-independence, which would mean nothing on server-side beyond protocol. Protocol work might happen outside of OpenAjax.

Server (Rick)

Metadata is a point of contention. Trying to limit discussion, scope of OpenAjax involvement

Where is the best potential for success? Provide a reference implementation? Formalization of an approach Jon: possible to provide server abstractions. jmaki as an example of wrappers which make components and metadata easily available to servers potential for cross-fertilization

Resolution: Merge Server TF into Communications Hub activity.

Interopfest and demos


Coach: 1 hour of work, tops

lightstreamer demo sharing data feed via pub/sub

sharing data with tibco

Similar demo with DWR. Server side calls pub/sub apis

GI: Very easy to integrate. Raised issue of toolkit loading after onload, worked out with the group

ilog: used dojo dnd to with their own component. could abstract dnd to work with other toolkits

openspot: demonstration of cross-domain hack between frames "XDDE". Used refresh event to trigger. Dojo uses similar trick, but uses timers. Now uses alternative - via Java applet.

openlink: pivot table widget

event hub (pub/sub) seems to be most popular feature

nobody used markup scanner

Where we should go with Hub, Registry, Best Practices


  • Topic: Planning completion of OpenAjax Hub 1.0
    • Proposal:
      • Finalize/approve OpenAjax Hub 1.0 early summer 2007 with subsetted feature set
        • Subsetted feature set for Hub 1.0 discussed on March 7

Alex presents latest revision of hub which only includes registerLibrary, pub/sub and new approach to document load/unload events. Important to keep it small. Will be downloaded billions of times over the Web.

Dojo 1.0 is aiming for a base of 50k, so current hub was unacceptable.

Responsibility to keep size small. (his OpenAjax.js is 4k, original was >30k; 1.9k compressed vs 11k compressed)

Remove redundant code in Dojo, diff is down to 1k.

Throw a message on topic bus at load instead of separate APIs

Toolkits may choose to provide that event

Tests and test harness included

Globals? Alex suggests that this is not a runtime function. OpenAjax could function as a registry.

Mike: stresses the importance of the 1.0 release as industry standard. Why include something we don't want?

Ted: registering globals should be required for openajax compliance, but not part of a runtime hub should be based off Domain name system or something which requries no effort on part of oaa top-level objects should not conflict with names used by compressors

early summer 2007 date?

Mike: we are shipping 3 things: spec, ref impl, test suite

Mike: get it right, be happy with it in 5 years

Mike: need community involvement outside the team

Craig: reserve an event prefix for ourselves for future use

unclear whether registry for globals is the right approach?

howard: other companies should be able to create their own standards also

howard: payload should be standardized as part of topic (Jon: that's what microformats are)

howard: versioning?

Resolution: Accept proposal to cut back feature set in Hub 1.0 to library management, event bus, new approach to load/unload events via broadcasting events vis event bus, postpone/drop markup scanner, postpone/drop globals. Ship Hub 1.0 only after it is right with sufficient involvement outside the team, but as quickly as possible under those constraints.

  • Topic: Future versions of OpenAjax Hub, OpenAjax Conformance, and InteropFest
    • Proposal:
      • Finish OpenAjax Hub 1.0 this summer
      • Shoot for OpenAjax 1.1 to be feature complete by next F2F, finish in early 2008
        • OpenAjax 1.1 includes Hub 1.1, Conformance 1.1, Registry 1.1, maybe a couple more things)
        • Hub 1.1 likely to include globals management and communications hub
        • Hub 1.1 might include markup scanner, load/unload management
      • Topic: OpenAjax Conformance 1.0
        • Proposal for short-term: Define OpenAjax Conformance 1.0 as supporting the conformance requirements in the Hub spec
        • Proposed long-term vision: see if we can keep all OpenAjax *** (*** = Hub, Conformance, Registry, Best Practices, ...) version numbers in sync

Resolution: After Hub 1.0, a main focus of Interoperability WG would be globals/registry and integration of Communications Hub if ready. Markup scanner might never happen. Load/unload likely to remain as is. General agreement with versioning strategy which keeps version numbers in sync for OpenAjax Conformance 1.x, OpenAjax Hub 1.x, OpenAjax Registry 1.x, and OpenAjax Best Practices 1.x, with OpenAjax Conformance 1.x means all of the conformance requirements for all of the 1.x specs.

Friday March 23

Process and Administration Issues


Voting Process

  • Topic: Modify voting procedures
    • Proposal: vote@openajax.org. Primary contacts must subscribe. Anyone else may subscribe.

Jon: voting list is advisory. primary contact votes are representative, commentary is important

Ken: Sometimes nice to keep voting threads separate from discussion so that voting process does not get bogged down

Eddie: have just one list unless there's a reason why material should be private or separate

Jon: will send to list then steering committee

Shel: Does vote get announced to all participants or only primary? Jon: All participants

David: Can we do vote in person?

+17

-3

Eddie: reason for negative vote - open source experience

Mike: discussion on list belongs on participants list

Ken: vote only list makes the list clearer

Second hand vote for those who feel strongly about this

+4 prefer separate list

+3 same list

Rick: Use a webform for voting instead of a list? Something which can generate RSS feeds

Mike: At Eclipse, committer voting happens on mailing list. Elections happen with a web application. Web app in development for things like new committer votes

Resolution: No changes at this time. For time being, voting will continue to be done on participants@openajax.org. Will see if we can switch to web-based voting (which is planned to be available for next Steering Committee election this fall).

Development Process amendment

  • Topic: Development Process amendment
    • Proposal: increase freeze period for Working Group proposals from 5 days to 10 days (per BEA suggestion)

No objections

Resolution: Will take to steering committee

Shel: in general, would be good to bring these topics up ahead of meeting since not all can attend

Marketing and Interop WG

  • Topic: Discuss timeline and proposed charters for Marketing and Interoperability Working Groups
    • Interoperability charter: /member/wiki/Interoperability_Charter
    • Marketing charter: /member/wiki/Marketing_Charter
    • Announced via email to participants@openajax.org on Jan. 29
    • Marketing WG Creation Review phone call: Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 9amPST, noonEST, 6pmParis
    • Interoperability WG Creation Review phone call: Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 8amPST, 11amEST, 5pmParis
    • Member voting: March 28-April 4, 2007
    • Steering Committee voting: April 4-April 11, 2007

Only a few comments on marketing committee since proposals were posted

Jon thinks Marketing charter is straight-forward, not much change since January. Interop charter may require changes given discussion yesterday regarding 1.0 vs 1.1, features.

Options: go with existing schedule or go ahead with just marketing and change schedule for interop. Jon leans towards the latter, but as quickly as possible.

+12

No objections

Resolution: Marketing WG continues with charter unchanged on current timeline. Interoperability WG will have its chartered updated per latest developments and then go through process on most accelerated schedule allowed by Development Process.

Fall election process changes

  • Topic: Fall election process changes
    • 3 Steering Committee slots open up in October
    • Proposal: same voting process as last fall (including Single Transferable Voting (STV)) except:
      • Provide Web page for voting (adapting Eclipse's voting software)
      • Each candidate gets to have a wiki page to say whatever they want about their candidacy
      • By convention, only candidate modifies the wiki page.
      • Anyone can say anything on discussion tab. Candidate most not remove or modify anyone else's comments, but may insert responses
    • Proposed timeline
      • Detailed write-up of election process and rules finalized 1 month before election
      • Members companies have ~1 month to nominate themselves (again, by adding their name to a wiki page)

No objections

Shel: One person per member company. Is it company nominated or person? Jon: Company

Mike: In case of catastrophe, Eclipse could send someone in his place

Resolution: Proposals for minor changes to election process (listed above) were accepted.

Budget and fees

  • Topic: Required procedures should OpenAjax ever establish budget and fees
    • Here is how it might work (i.e., proposed process to establish/modify OpenAjax budget&fees)
      • SC writes a budget&fees proposal
      • Proposal must allow 1 month between SC approval and when fees begin
      • Membership gets minimum 1 month to review proposal before all-member proposal review phone call
      • Then an all-member proposal review phone call
      • Then members get to vote (this vote is non-binding, but strongly worded guidelines tell the SC to take all negative comments seriously)
      • Then SC votes (this vote in binding)
      • If SC approves, all members must be notified about the new budget/fee plan. Notification must include instructions for members might terminate involvement in OpenAjax Alliance if they so choose.

David: current costs are website ($19/mo) and hosting meetings (food, etc.)

Mike: Most likely need to raise money is for legal fees

David: make the proposal available

Mike: should be available in steering committee meeting minutes

Craig: is SC votes line redundant since SC had to propose in the first place?

David: make sure SC is unanimous

no objections

Resolution: SC will vote and presumably approve something like the proposal above, with decision documented in the minutes.

Loosening up position on individuals

  • Topic: Loosening up our position on allowing individuals to join OpenAjax
    • See complaint from John Resig of jQuery: http://ejohn.org/blog/thoughts-on-openajax/
    • Here is current official policy:
      • "On an exceptional basis, individuals can join OpenAjax Alliance, but only after they have an established track record of involvement and contribution to OpenAjax Alliance efforts and after recommendation by an existing Member. In these exceptional cases, the individual must follow the same procedure as companies (i.e., follow instructions at /join.html). At this point, no individuals have been accepted as Members into OpenAjax Alliance. "
    • Here is one approach to loosening things a bit, while preserving incentive for companies to join:
      • "On an exceptional basis, individuals can join OpenAjax Alliance, but only upon recommendation by an existing Member; only after the given person has established a track record of involvement and contribution to OpenAjax Alliance efforts and/or to the Ajax community; and typically only if the given person is independent from organizations who are currently Members or should become Members. In these exceptional cases, the individual must follow the same procedure as companies (i.e., follow instructions at /join.html)."

Jon feels there is general agreement on this

Mike: explain "or should become members"

Jon: for example, if an individual in a company wants to join but really has no interests outside the company

David: way to avoid company agreement?

Mike: two sets of agreements is horrible

Mike: Deletion of "At this point..." is a given

Jon gives examples of Doug Crockford and John Resig

Adam: Both happen to be part of corporations in oaa or involved in the past in oaa, what about individuals like from prototype project?

Mike: trying to address individuals in Ajax toolkits who are not corporate backed?

Shel: contributions to the ajax community and openajax is redundant

Mike: Apache is meritocratic and individuals and the only way in is contributions to Apache

Mike: Do we want individual membership to represent some meritocratic principle in involvement in openajax? Or is broader involvement sufficient?

Shel: Difficult to contribute to openajax without being a member? Perhaps even problematic?

Mike: provisions for IP are covered for members only - provisions not to sue

Mike: Eclipse requires signature from employee

Jon: Problem is that there is often no legal entity, and no proof of ownership

Jon: Should we allow people like Sam Stephenson to join?

David: as long as he signs IP agreement and says he owns all IP.

Mike: 6 months later, what if he becomes an employee of Microsoft? Would he resign? Become an individual member? Clause might say "individual membership terminates if one is later employed by a member"

Eddie: this has happened on Apache. Issue is between individual and employer. Employer might tell individual to stop involvement

Alex: individual should be told to reassess membership if employment changes

Mike: legal issues vary by state. In Calif, employer cannot prevent open source involvement

Q: Make sure individual membership is non-transferable

David: right now, company memberships allow sharing/snooping within a company. Existing membership covers this for corporations.

Resolution: not going to solve this today. Positive about individuals without employment relationship to join. Mike's language about individuals later getting employed leads to discussion with oaa. Not sure what to do about individuals employed by companies. IP issues complicate matter.

David O: Dues and individual membership?

Testing

  • Topic: Quick brainstorm about potential future work around Ajax testing
    • We have a new member, OpenSymphony, umbrella organization for OpenQA (http://www.openqa.org)
    • Question: ow can OpenAjax help the Ajax toolkit world and Ajax application developers do more efficient testing?

OpenSymphony joins oaa

Jon: oaa must remain vendor neutral, but promote testing

Resolution: Consensus that future activities around testing are something we should look into, but not right now.

Long-term plan for oaa

  • Topic: What's the long-term plan for OpenAjax Alliance
    • Here are some alternatives
      • 10 - We plan to last a long time and become much bigger with significantly more activities
      • 6 - We plan to last a long time, will grow somewhat bigger and launch some new activities, but won't ever get very large
      • 3 - We plan to last a long time, but will slow down as we discover we have accomplished most of the critical parts of our mission
      • 1 - We plan to shut down completely in a couple of years
    • Along another axis
      • Does OpenAjax Alliance continue to be its own independent organization
      • Or is there a merger into some other industry consortium

Our intent on longevity may not matter?

Resolution: out of time, skip issue and go to mobile presentation

Next F2F meeting

Default: AjaxWorld on West Coast (October?)

David: international locale?

No objections to West Coast

Alex: Should consider shutting down when AjaxWorld shuts down

Resolution: Next meeting is likely to be on West Coast in conjunction with Sept 2007 AJAXWorld. Need to work right away on finding a host.

Mobile Ajax


  • Topic: Introduction (Rhys Lewis)
    • Who are Volantis?
    • What is our interest in Mobile Ajax
  • Topic: Background on Mobile Ajax and what has happened since October F2F (Jon Ferraiolo)
    • Executive summary about what happened at our Mobile Ajax session at our October F2F (1 slide)
    • Executive summary about joint phone call W3C/OpenAjax (1 very short slide)
    • Report from 3GSM trade show and "Mobile Ajax Summit" (1 slide)
  • Topic: How Volantis Views What's Happening (Rhys Lewis)
    • Current Volantis Mobile Applications
      • Buzzcast Demo
    • Using the Server to Help Authors
    • Trends
      • Push for Mobile
      • Distributed Mobile Applications
    • Discussion - do others agree or disagree?
  • Topic: Role of OpenAjax Alliance? (Rhys Lewis)
    • Can we exploit progress yet? (e.g., Documenting Successes)
    • Can we document successful Mobile Ajax techniques yet?
    • Can we define Mobile Ajax best practices yet?
    • Are there any technical standards we should work on? (One candidate: device APIs)
  • Topic: Upcoming Events (Rhys Lewis)
    • June 5-6 Dublin Ireland, W3C Workshop on Ubiquitous Web Applications
    • 3rd Week of June, Joint W3C/OpenAjax Alliance Workshop
      • Key question to answer at the Workshop: what should W3C do and what should OpenAjax Alliance do?
      • Call on people to submit position papers to the Workshop and attend if able to do so

Alex: needs standardization around access to phone features to make it useful: Audio/Video, Camera, location. Dojo basically runs on all the phones today.

Platform does not matter until it's democratized in technology.

Rhys: there are currently use cases which are compelling

Shel: TF on mobility would record existing status/best efforts/stds work. If/when problems are identified that would lead to creation of a WG, then we'd form one. Meanwhile, just have TF on mobility.

From Rhys's slide deck:

  • Can we exploit progress yet?
  • Can we document successful mobile Ajax techniques yet?
  • Can we define mobile Ajax best practices yet?
  • ACID-like test?
  • Are there any technical standards on which we should work?
    • One possible candidate is device APIs

Resolution: Start a Mobile Task Force. Initial activities would be centered around documenting successful Mobile Ajax development and deployment strategies. This helps with promotion and education and would likely expose lists of Ajax features needed within mobile browsers (progress towards Acid test) and lead towards collecting a list of Best Practices. Regarding device api standards, if the community submits a proposal and feels OpenAjax is the best place, we might develop some sort of pre-standard that would be handed off to a different standards organization later.

Lunch

Marketing breakout session on Friday afternoon


  • Topic: Press coverage and blog entries on the face-to-face meeting
    • Do we want a send out a press release that updates the world on OpenAjax? If so, what topics?
    • What blog entries on www.openajax.org/blog, and by whom?

David: Can't do another press release now. Maybe next one will be when Hub 1.0 goes out.

Resolution: Jon will add a blog entry. Coach asked if he could blog.

  • Topic: Other promotional activities?
    • Encourage use of the "OpenAjax Alliance Member" logo
    • Proposal: Develop a "OpenAjax Conformant" logo?
    • Proposal: OpenAjax brochure and monitor ear
    • Who will talk about OpenAjax at various conferences?
    • Who will write articles and press releases on OpenAjax?
    • Who will blog on OpenAjax?

Chuck: Another idea versus a brochure would be to have a standard folder into which we can place printouts. The folder will stand the test of time.

Chuck: Easy to make trinkets. Cafepress does mugs. Zazzle t-shirts.

Erwan: Don't want to go too far on this. Will look too corporate. Needs to be lower profile and neutral.

Jon: (joking) We are doing a good job so far regarding lower profile and neutral.

Rhys: Will be on panel on Mobile Ajax at WWW 2007.

Resolution: Sun encouraged to develop collaterals. Others encouraged to mention OpenAjax within other discussions with press, as has been done in some situations already.

  • Topic: OpenAjax Conformance
    • "OpenAjax Conformant" logo?
    • How do we publicize this?
    • Do we publicize conforming members?
    • How do member companies publicize their conformance?

Erwan: yes, we want a conformance logo.

(others agree)

someone: needs to be visually different than existing member logo.

Chuck: Give logo to a designer and look at their proposals.

Chuck: Maybe need a level indicator, such as one-star, two-star, three-star.

Erwan: But if multiple levels, then the marketing guy will say only shoot for lowest level.

David: Why we have level 1 and 2 at IBM for "IBM Business Partner". But most companies just want the certificate.

Check: How would we retire a logo?

David: Say something like Conform 99 or Conform 06. But need to stay away from any sort of compatibility testing kit.

Chuck: Perhaps conformance at a point in time.

Jon: That's my vision and matches the proposal about versioning I talked about earlier. We roll out OpenAjax Conformance 1.0, which consists of all conformance requirements with our 1.0 specs. Then OpenAjax Conformance 1.1, which consists of all conformance requirements with our 1.1 spec. And so on. We educate customers about these different versions and evangelize to them that about the higher level conformance numbers and when they are important. The logo says "OpenAjax Conformant ...version#...". Try as hard as we can to only have one axis, the version number axis, and not multiple levels. Achieve this by having a smaller number of actual requirements, but a larger number of suggested best practices, and agree it is important to keep conformance rules simple. Just a single definition of 1.1, not a high 1.1 and a low 1.1.

Chuck: We have the same philosophy: low bar. We have problems with bad claims and need to send letters. We require self-certification and have a claims web site.

Dylan/Jon: Conformance claims web site is too much for this community. We don't want to get into the certification game at all, even self-administered.

Jon: Has to be like W3C, where an organization can simply make a claim based on conformance requirements in specs, and leave it the community to do the policing. We are a voluntary organization without staff and with no capacity for certification activities.

Coach: A low hurdle that people have to pass. Code changes and conformance tests. A low bar that is reasonably well-defined.

Resolution: Once Hub 1.0 is nearing completion, have a designer propose an "OpenAjax Conformance 1.0" logo. Mechanisms and process as proposed by Jon above.

  • Topic: Jon proposal: OpenAjax Product Selector Application
    • Showcases our taxonomy of Ajax architectures
    • Categorizes Ajax products (open source and commercial) based on our taxonomy
    • Links to Web sites for various toolkits
    • Toolkit-independent expression of the Web site's user interface
      • XSLT (or whatever) maps to render via particular member toolkits who volunteer to do the work
      • Default: toolkits chosen by random choice
      • User has option to switch the toolkits that are used
      • Maybe also reflects toolkit convergence, such as shared debug monitors, such as Dojo using
    • Demonstrates use of the Hub and our Best Practices (via supplemental Web page)

Resolution: Sounds good on paper. Would allow us to have some Ajax on our web site. Need to see more detailed proposals and prototypes.

Retrieved from "/member/wiki/2007_March_Members_Meeting_Minutes"
Personal tools