Markup Minutes 2006-09-21
From MemberWiki
Minutes from Declarative Markup committee teleconference September 21, 2006
Attendees
- Anil Sharma <anil@vertexlogic.com>
- Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@bea.com>
- James Margaris <jmargaris@nexaweb.com>
- Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Lindsey Simon <lsimon@finetooth.com>
- Ted Thibodeau <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Absent
- Adam Peller <apeller@us.ibm.com>
- Alejandro Escalante Medina <alejandroe@jackbe.com>
- Alex Russell <alex@dojotoolkit.org>
- Bradley Sipes <Bradley.Sipes@ikivo.com>
- Brodi Beartusk <bbeartus@bea.com>
- Charles Lowell <cowboyd@thefrontside.net>
- Chris Jolley <jolleyc@bea.com>
- Chuck Ames <CAmes@seagullsoftware.com>
- Coach Wei <coach@nexaweb.com>
- Dave Johnson <djohnson@ebusiness-apps.com>
- David Frankel <david.frankel@sap.com>
- David Temkin <temkin@laszlosystems.com>
- Eric Nguyen <ericn@mercedsystems.com>
- Erik van Dongen <evandongen@seagullsoftware.com>
- Gustavo Munoz <gustavom@jackbe.com>
- Javier Gallego <Javier.Gallego@softwareag.com>
- Jeremy Chone <jchone@adobe.com>
- Jim Grandy <jgrandy@openlaszlo.org>
- John Crupi <john.crupi@jackbe.com>
- Joonas Lehtinen <joonas.lehtinen@itmill.com>
- Jorge Taylor <jotaylor@adobe.com>
- Ken Fyten <ken.fyten@icesoft.com>
- Kin Blas <jblas@adobe.com>
- Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Marc Englund <marc.englund@itmill.com>
- Mark Schiefelbein <mark@backbase.com>
- Michael Peachey <mpeachey@tibco.com>
- Phil Berkland <berkland@us.ibm.com>
- Ravindran Navamany <ravi@vircon.com>
- Ruben Daniels <ruben@javeline.nl>
- Sami Ekblad <sami.ekblad@itmill.com>
- Steven Pothoven <pothoven@us.ibm.com>
- Vincent Hardy <vincent.hardy@sun.com>
- Victor Leith <vsleith@us.ibm.com>
- Vivienne van der Vooren <vvandervooren@seagullsoftware.com>
- William Shulman <will@mercedsystems.com>
Agenda
- Agenda
- Review web page for our SourceForge project
- Review how to sign up as a contributor to our SourceForge project
- How to organize our open source project at SourceForge
- Proposal: trunk/hub, branches/hub, tags/hub
- But then how to organize the contents of trunk/hub?
- Discussion/feedback on Steering Committee election process
- Discussion/feedback on face-to-face meeting agenda (first-draft proposal)
- 2006 October Members Meeting
- Who will present at the sessions?
Topic: Review web page for our SourceForge project
(discussion about this topic was grouped with next topic)
Review how to sign up as a contributor to our SourceForge project
(Jon introduces the web site, says that the current site is an attempt to reflect decisions made at previous discussions and how there has to be a signature covering each contributor, either via the company's signature on Members Agreement or his signature on Non-Member contributor section.)
Lindsey: Looks fine. Give it a try. Fix it if problems arise.
Ted: Concur
How to organize our open source project at SourceForge
- Proposal: trunk/hub, branches/hub, tags/hub
- But then how to organize the contents of trunk/hub?
Jon: Three options. If you think you will only have one project, then option 1 is to have directories trunk, branches and tags with any project directories. If you think you will have multiple projects but there will be high overlap, then option 2 is to have a project subdirectory for each of trunk, branches and tags. If you think you will have multiple projects but with little overlap, then option 3 is to have a project subdirectory at the bottom level, where each project has its own subdirectories for trunk, branches, tags.
Ted: Inclined towards option 3.
Jon: I was thinking option 2 because of likely sharing of things like event hub with future projects.
Ted: More natural to think about things on a project basis at highest level.
James: Doesn't matter much. If you want to version things independently then option 3 makes the most sense. Option 2 tends to result in branching all projects at the same time. Separate projects is safer. Preference for option 3.
Jon: I am hearing consensus around /hub/{trunk,branches,tags}. Any objections?
(none)
Jon: One level deeper. Suppose there are two files, openajax.js and scanner.js. Do they belong in the /hub/trunk directory or another container directory, such as "source"?
James: Probably makes sense to have a container directory so that we have can images and CSS files later.
(Ted via IRC: /hub/{trunk,branches,tags}/{src,images,etc.})
Jon: Makes sense to me. Anyone disagree?
(none)
Jon: Final question: src or source?
(people indicate not a big deal either way)
Jon: So, let's decide based on preferences of people who made the effort to show up to the meeting.
Lindsey: src
Anil: src
Ted: don't care
Jon: don't care
James: src
Resolution: SVN directories will be structured as follows: /hub/{trunk,branches,tags}/{src,images,etc.} and the source code will be in directory src
Jon: Anything else on source code?
Jon: Remember, all contributors even from people on this call must follow instructions from our SourceForge project. Note that there is a limbo period for most companies where your Members Agreement is not active until just before face-to-face meeting when first six companies to sign will accept all of the Members Agreements from existing companies as a formality. If you want to contribute source code before the face-to-face meeting, follow the non-member instructions. Then at face-to-face, follow instructions for member companies.
Ted: No need to do the second step.
Jon: Technically, you are correct. But it is cleaner to change to claim what is more appropriate, that you are contributing on behalf of a member company.
Discussion/feedback on Steering Committee election process
Jon: Only change is that it is 99% likely that we will use Single Tranferrable Voting (STV) instead of Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV). In most cases, they produce the same result. The reason for STV is that there is precedent because Eclipse uses this, there is downloadable open source software which is verifiable for doing the counting, and STV was designed explicitly for multiple winner elections. IRV is also used in real practice, but only for single winner elections. I had to invent a multipass step on IRV, which does not have precedent. Interim Steering Committee already gave an interim thumbs up to STV pending my evaluation. I have evaluated STV and it looks fine, so we just need Interim Steering Committee to formalize this switch, which is basically certain.
Jon: One thing about STV is that it promotes proportional representation. If you have a 7-winner election and 15% prefer a particular candidate, usually that candidate gets chosen. I think that's appropriate for us.
Jon: Any comments or feedback?
(none)
Discussion/feedback on face-to-face meeting agenda (first-draft proposal)
- 2006 October Members Meeting
- Who will present at the sessions?
Jon: I have sent private email to most of you asking about your companies presenting at the meeting. If any of you will be speaking and haven't told me already, please speak up now.
(silence)
Jon: OK, see you at the face-to-face meeting in two weeks. There will be a joint Interoperability and Markup meeting on the morning of the second day.
