IDE TF Minutes 2007-04-26

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

URL: http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/IDE_TF_Minutes_2007-04-12

Contents

Attendees this week

  • Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai(at)us.ibm.com>
  • Phil Berkland <berkland(at)us.ibm.com> representing Eclipse ATF project
  • Bertrand Le Roy <Bertrand.Le.Roy(at)microsoft.com>
  • Greg Murray <greg.murray(at)sun.com>
  • Ted Thibodeau <tthibodeau(at)openlinksw.com>
  • Ingo Muschenetz <ingo(at)aptana.com>
  • Kevin Hakman <khakman(at)tibco.com>
  • Steve Hunt <steve.hunt(at)coradiant.com>

Regrets this week

  • Wayne Beaton <wayne(at)eclipse.org>

Original agenda

Minutes

Kevin: Thanks for joining. Agenda is looking at proposed working group charter. Comments and changes incorporated, Take the opportunity to finalize by end of the call today. Focus on making sure the mission and scope are accurate.

http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/IDE_Charter

Jon: Phil to look at fifth bullet. Phil reminded us that we left off debug versions of libraries. So I added it. Perhaps there is a better way to word it?

Phil: That's probably ok.

Kevin: The intent was that we intended to look at the issue of debugging. There are probably other ways we could include it, but the net effect is the same.

Phil: Looks ok.

Kevin: Any other comments or refinements for mission or scope?

(no responses)

Kevin: Looks like that is finalized.

Jon: Next red note--I added the second sentence.

Kevin: That sounds like a nice further clarification. Any objections?

(no responses)

Kevin: Next red note. Question about that the doc titles are broader than the description. Are you referring to Ajax IDE Integration Specification?

Jon: Yes. If we wish to make it a proposed title, perhaps make it lower case.

Kevin: let's lower case the items that don't require caps, and also for use cases and specification. IDE integration doesn't make specification

Phil: Nitpick, but it sounds like you are integrating IDEs.

Kevin: Let's just lower-case it for now.

Jon: (reading from wiki). Do people agree with that phrasing? That's what we want to doc title to convey. That it's integrating Ajax toolkits into Ajax IDEs.

Kevin: We can defer that to later.

Jon: Don't care about the name, just that the message is the same.

Kevin: Discussion about proper naming.

Jon: An Ajax IDE is an IDE that supports Ajax, but perhaps other things as well

Phil: I prefer "Into IDEs". By doing this you are making an Ajax IDE

Kevin: Made that change. Onto third part "The WG may produce..." Should we provide a sample application? It's been valuable in the interoperability working group process.

Phil: That's a bit different.

Jon: That might be too much work.

Phil: You'd have to choose which toolkit you'll do it for

Kevin: I'm comfortable with how it is.

Phil: A reference is nice, but you need to choose who you'll do it for.

Kevin: Any further comments? Any comments or questions on the "Coordination with other working groups section"?

(no comments)

Kevin: Moving to Schedule duration and milestones. We've given ourselves until mid-2007 for ratification, 1.0 spec by mid-2008. Any other comments?

Jon: Milestones is one section I did not make changes. From last week, we ant to be informed by the various product schedules that might interoperate with this. If we see some opportunities for clustering, be might do some alignment, more to get feedback on our implementation.

Kevin: From TIBCO, on average, about 3 releases/year. Anticipate that general continued pace. Seems reasonable that we would be able to do these sort of things in these time frames.

Phil: Like to see it moved up a bit. Already have the need to support it. Question is how soon the toolkits can provide this

Kevin: The goal is that it takes some effort to go into products. From TIBCO, we've wanted to do this over a year, and think it's important in portal and mashup environments.

Ingo: I think we can support this pretty quickly, but I'd like to see the date moved up.

Jon: I pulled that date out of thin air, but the industry is moving quickly. If we don't act, we could be irrelevant.

Kevin: What's the typical cycle time between draft spec and complete spec?

Jon: On SVG: There was a two-year cycle there.

Kevin: I'm trying to recap the timelines from the hub.

Jon: Requirements definition in July, sat around for four months. Then I wrote the first JS implementation, had the interop fest, nothing happened, then now major changes based on the interop fest. From that, we can expect that there might be significant changes that might come from the first draft.

Kevin: Perhaps move draft to inter 2007, and final to spring 2008. Dec. might be too late for draft. Is there a minimum distance for review time?

Jon: I'd say 2 months is a good ballpark. There is at least 15 days for an IP review, and then various voting committees.

Kevin: So I would suggest Nov for draft spec, and then Jan for final?

Phil: How soon would toolkit vendors begin providing this info?

Kevin: I think it depends on the spec, and the stability of the spec.

Jon: Definitely depends on the spec. If W3C, if it's a candidate recommendation, some companies will jump in, others will wait. We may want to plan out an interop fest. Once we feel we have a complete spec, we can have a set of test cases for it, and then publish the results and make adjustments.

Kevin: good idea. Any reason to add that to the formal list?

Jon: I think putting a bullet in about an InteropFest would be good.

Kevin: Adding bullet.

Jon: Add another bullet about the revised feature complete spec.

Kevin: Voting process now Nov 1st, finalized Jan 2008. Feature complete draft spec in August.

Jon: AjaxWorld in September. We should try and coordinate with that.

Jon: Two suggestions: Move draft to December 1st. Then insert an incomplete but reviewable draft spec out in July for members to review.

Kevin: Changes made.

Kevin. Onto "Success in completion criteria". One point to discuss. There is a third class of stakeholder which are component vendors. Infragistics as an example. They were afraid of joining the alliance as they were afraid that they would have to open-source their technology. I dispelled that, and they are okay with joining. But we should consider this group.

Jon: So add a bullet for component vendors.

Kevin: So we need to recruit these types of vendors into the working group.

Jon: The language about recruitment is already at the bottom of the document

Jon: Looking back. Under milestones, shouldn't use-cases and requirements be available before first spec.

Kevin: Let's just assign a date. How about June 2007? We've got about 15 minutes left. Any other comments to refine this before we send this out to group.

Jon: It seems like we should have a different IRC channel.

Kevin: ooa-ide?

Jon: Sounds good.

Kevin. Member voting and steering voting section has a bunch of question marks.

Jon: When will the charter be frozen? If we freeze it today, then we can start the clock today. You need to send the proposal declaration email. Just copy from the ones I sent for the marketing and interoperability groups. With that, include a proposed schedule. Mention that the proposal is frozen, and when the creation review phone call will be. Make sure that there are other steering committee people on that call. You need three weeks from the freeze period. Actually, don't send out the schedule initially.

Jon: If not problems, voting will happen the day after the creation review phone call. Generally recommend one week for noting spans in case there people are on vacation.

Kevin: Do you need to be on the creation review call to voice an opinion?

Jon: No you can do it via email. But this looks straightforward. Complaints are unlikely. It looks like it will fly through.

Kevin: Okay. Looks good. Just need to decide the date for the creation review phone call. Everyone review the docs for grammar and I'll stay on the call to catch them.

Jon: While people are doing that, wit the aggressive schedule, we need to make progress on the use cases.

Kevin: TIBCO's user conference next week, JavaOne bad for others?

Greg: That would be an understatement

Jon: I am personally unavailable in two week's time.

Kevin: There is a lot of work there already wit use cases. People can continue to refine them on the wiki. Other than forming the working group...is there anything else we can do? E could try and recruit component vendors. Advise them that the working group is being formed and they should consider participation.

Jon: With the requirements page. Perhaps there are possible shortcuts. Maybe if you took a pass about what you think are musts/shoulds/mays. One person makes a straw-man proposal, and we review that.

Kevin: I would generally do that, but next weeks are very busy for me.

Jon: Perhaps there is a way to speed up the process.

Kevin: Is there anyone who can do that something like that?

Jon: I might be able to do some, but I can make a contribution. I'm not as familiar with all the IDE pieces.

Kevin: If you can do that, Jon, that would be great. I think the bullets reduce in scope as we go down. Just do what you can as we get through this busy period for others. Thanks everyone and talk to you next week.

Retrieved from "http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/IDE_TF_Minutes_2007-04-26"
Personal tools