Marketing Minutes 2007-11-13

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

URL: http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/Marketing_Minutes_2007-11-13

Contents

OpenAjax Alliance Marketing Working Group meeting minutes 2007-11-13

Attendees

  • Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai(at)us.ibm.com>
  • Ted Thibodeau <tthibodeau(at)openlinksw.com>
  • David Frankel <david.frankel(at)sap.com>
  • Rick Saletta <RSaletta(at)wavemaker.com>

Original Agenda

  • Agenda
    • Next set of white papers
    • How to roll out OpenAjax Conformance 1.0
    • Web site update? Looking for ideas and suggestions
      • I'm thinking that it's time to highlight recent news, not just highlight our list of members
      • But news and announcements also appear on our blog
      • Have long promised to add a link to OpenDomain.org
    • OpenAjax vendor catalog at next year's Ajax conferences?
    • We now also have OpenAjax.com. What should we do with it?

Minutes

Topic: New white papers on JSF and portals

Jon: Erwan isn't here, so let's postpone that discussion until when he joins us

David: What is his role? Will he produce a first draft?

Jon: He has volunteered to lead the effort and I expect him to repurpose some existing ILOG content into an early draft.

David: Should we ask for a particular date when such a draft would be ready?

Jon: Good idea. I will do that.

Topic: New write-up on OpenAjax Conformance

Jon: Does everyone have access to the wiki page?

David/Ted: yes

Rick: no

Jon: I took the existing content from our current Web site that we produced before and attempted to update it. For example, I changed from future tense to present tense. Instead of we plan to do the following regarding conformance, it's about how conformance works today.

Jon: Let's run through the wiki page top to bottom.

Introductory sections

David: Grammatical error in first sentence. "an umbrella".

Jon: Thanks.

Rick: Will there be multiple categories for conformance?

Jon: For now, we only have conformance requirements for runtime libraries in the Hub 1.0 spec, but in the future we will have specs that address other things, like IDEs. So, now, only one category, but in the future, multiple.

Section 3: Conformance claims

Jon: Most of the content here is unchanged from our web site, but the first paragraph is new and talks about how we want vendors to make conformance claims.

Jon: Oops, there is an error. Need to remove "As currently envisioned" from last paragraph. That's future tense.

Ted: At the end of 2nd sentence in 1st paragraph, should be "conformant" not "conformance".

Jon: Thanks.

David: 1st paragraph is about benefits. Maybe move 1st paragraph to end of section 2 and change title of 3rd section to claims and OpenAjax versions.

Jon: Sounds good.

Rick: Will there be a page where conformance claims are listed?

Jon: Let's cycle back on that issue once we finish going through the document

David: Back to last sentence of first paragraph in current section 3. Two uses of "because". Change 2nd to "due to". Also, changed "gains" to "gained".

Jon: Thanks.

Section 4

Ted: Strip out from "there is only... to "conformance".

David: Yes.

Jon: OK.

David: Make it "To be OpenAjax 1.0 Conformance, a product..."

Ted: That's fine.

Jon: Thanks.

Section 5

David: Question about first 2 sections - is it possible to test toolkits? Section says it is not technically possible.

Jon: We have a comprehensive test suite for implementations of the Hub itself, but we do not and cannot have a comprehensive test suite for Ajax libraries that use the Hub. Only a human who understands the requirements and the nature of a given library could cast judgment on whether the library is doing the right things to be conformant.

David: So there are things that cannot be tested. You are saying it is not possible to have a fully automatic conformance test suite and might involve some human processes.

Jon: But it's not like we have nothing. We have our test cases from our interoperability events, but those tests are focused on the interoperability events, not on conformance verification.

David: Yes, they help but they are not comprehensive. So, how about "not possible to offer a comprehensive, fully automated test suite."

Jon: Sounds good.

Jon: I noticed that "within" should be "with"

David: "claims of" should be "claim"

David: "alleged abuse"

Jon: Yes

Jon: Regarding reporting bad claims, right now I have reports sent to public@openajax.org because that's the only list that non-members can post to. Should we create a new email alias?

Rick: Absolutely. And make it public so the public and media can see it.

Jon: Obvious name would be conformance@openajax.org.

Rick: Redirect to other groups.

David: What about spurious claims? Maybe Steering Committee should look at them.

Jon: Yes, on process side, Steering Committee would be the appropriate answer.

Ted: It isn't OpenAjax that is making the disputed claim, it is someone from the industry. Vendors should respond if the public makes comments on the vendor's products, not OpenAjax Alliance.

Ted: Which brings up the question, do people make claims via email or via a wiki page?

Jon: Let's discuss at the end of the call.

Jon: The mailing list can have a description that includes what the list is for and how the process works

Ted: The description can be a CYA. Allow valid comments on conformance to go though this list, but tell them that general topics about OpenAjax should go elsewhere.

David: Anyone who of such a list for non-observance claims?

Rick: For JCP, there is no such list, but that's because Sun does the policing.

Ted/Rick: IN our case, community polices

Ted: Don't send to Steering Committtee. just leave on list. Credibility goes down for the vendor.

Rick: But vendors can make claims against each other. Hopefully, this would not add much to Steering Committee workload.

Jon: SC only would get involved in most blatant situations where there might be damage to OpenAjax or our conformance trust brand

Ted: Right no conformance is very easy and easy to discover when there are wrong claims. Bad things probably will not happen.

Rick: Based on what I have learned at JCP, my expectation is that 1 year or 18 months this might become a purchasing criterion. Which makes it much more important.

Ted: But I don't see OpenAjax turning into something like the Java space.

Rick: I expect it is easy to have a procedure in place before.

Ted: Any examples from open space?

Rick: No.

Rick: Some vendors might want to make statements about each other.

Ted: Best thing is to make sure the specs are clear.

Jon: I think we need to cycle with the SC on this topic to get high-level guidance and then discuss again here to work out details.

Rick: Key question is: If a competitor to us makes bad statements, is it better to have discussion in public so the media can see it or some other approach?

Section 7: Future

Jon: I see a couple of typos.

David: Will there be one set of conformance criteria in the future or separate ones for type of product? Right now it looks like we are simply piling on requirements.

Jon: I was expecting different categories of products with different sets of requirements.

David: Might want to consider a sentence that explains that.

Jon: I agree.

Section 8: logos

Jon: Almost out of time. Just checking. We have decided in the past that there would be conformance logos.

Ted: Good plan.

Rick: I'm in favor.

Next steps

Jon: OK, out of time. I'll run this past the Steering Committee and within a month we can cycle back and talk about this again. Thanks, everyone.

Retrieved from "http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/Marketing_Minutes_2007-11-13"
Personal tools