Steering Committee Minutes 2006-11-30

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

URL: http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/Steering_Committee_Minutes_2006-11-30

(These minutes have reivewed and approved by the Steering Committee.)

Contents

OpenAjax Alliance Steering Committee meeting minutes 2006-11-30

Attendees

  • Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
  • DOJO/Alex Russell
  • IBM/David Boloker
  • ZEND/Michael Pinette
  • NEXAWEB/Coach Wei
  • ECLIPSE/Mike Milinkovich
  • TIBCO/Kevin Hakman
  • ZIMBRA/Scott Dietzen

Original Agenda

  • Thursday 30 November, 10amPST, 1pmEST, 7pmParis
  • Dial-in Number(s):
    • Toll Free: 1-888-227-9220
    • Toll: 1-719-785-4480
    • Participant Pin access code: 871757
  • Agenda
    • Status report (on the agenda for every SC meeting)
    • Development Process
    • Mobile Ajax
      • Alex's progress and discoveries
      • Phone call with W3C Mobile Web Initiative, suggestion of OpenAjax survey on Mobile Ajax
      • Nokia's demo at Ajax Experience, recent discussions with Nokia
    • Authorizating Jon to give new member press release quotes so long as straightforward like Helmi's
    • Authorizating Jon to post blogs so long as obviously consistent with mission, purpose and policies
      • In particular, blog entries about progress within committees and task forces

Minutes

Topic: Status report (on the agenda for every SC meeting)

sysadmin

  • Blog is online now
  • Mailman appears to be working (FINALLY!)

Jon: Since last meeting, blog is up with 3 entries. Mail lists via Mailman are working. Only two remaining problems. Bug with participants@openajax.org and I need to fill out the members of primarycontacts@openajax.org.

New member activity

  • One company has sent in their signed agreement: Volantis - http://www.volantis.com
    • Leading vendor of "Intelligent Content Adaptation" for mobile devices. Focused mainly on HTML right now, but wants to add Ajax support. Very strong participant in mobile standards activities, particularly W3C/MWI.

David: See no reason not to bring them in.

(All six present say yes)

(Scott joins)

Jon: Does anyone object to unanimous consent?

(no objections)

RESOLUTION: Volantis membership approved by SC

  • Can Redmonk join?

Jon: Discussed at marketing committee.

David: Michael says he wants to join to get a better feel of industry and understand technology better. See how Ajax is moving. Also see how companies are working together and which ones aren't and just sitting on side. Since we have open mailing lists and open minutes and open web site, it's not a far cry to let them listen in. Also, give us personal inputs. One of the biggest advocates of Web2.0 are steven o'grady and jame governor.

MikeM: I like Redmonk but not sure about analysts joining.

Alex: I like them. But ones that follow may not be fine.

David: To me, if we are going to be open, let's be wide open.

Alex: But we already are. They can get data without joining.

David: Agree. But do we see it as a big issue if we do join. If you remember Dion was part of IP agreement.

Alex: Fair enough.

MikeM: I am just reading the last paragraph of legal document, but first read says it is supposed to be companies and orgs that will be devoting resources to create the technology.

David: Question to ask. Do we feel they can help us move Ajax move forward. If they can help us with marketing and writing. Help with pointers in their blogs.

MikeM: Can't stop them from blogging about Ajax.

David: But OpenAjax.

Kevin: Contribute to marketing efforts is valid.

MikeM: If point is to monitor or contribute?

David: Yesterday, they said to contribute.

MikeP: Good contributors to industry and very active bloggers.

Coach: If we allow Redmonk to join, what about eweek?

David: Difference between analysts and press.

Alex: Analyst do research :-)

David: Q: if they want to work in subcommittee, I have a hard time saying no.

Coach: Yes.

MikeM: Why do they want to join?

David: I talked to them yesterday. They want to see how exactly companies are working together.

MikeM: That comment sounded more like viewing than contributing.

MikeM: Did you tell them about open process?

Jon: I don't remember, but probably not.

MikeM: To me, key distinguishing thing is contributing. Just viewing how members interoperate isn't a good sign.

David: Let's go back to them and ask intentions.

MikeP: Sounds like consensus.

Jon: How about a phone call with Michael and explain the things we talked about.

Jon: We are nervous about precedent and only objection we have in this case.

Kevin: One of the things marketing committee can do is brief analysts on activities.

Jon: Maybe semi-regular briefing to analysts from Markteting Committee or SC.

Alex: Might be an obvious way of bridging the gap.

Kevin: Mktg commmittee could send whitepapers to Redmonk for comment and input.

RESOLUTION: Jon to have a phone call with Redmonk that explains situation and our concerns, then report back to SC.

Marketing committee

Jon: OK to approve the two legal docs? Marketing committee said it was OK to go public with them.

MikeM: There is one other step I need to work through on my end. Those documents on Eclipse web site. Available under Eclipse public license. Derivative work has to be under EPL as well. What I need to figure out whether we need something on bottom of document that says document is available under EPL or find a way for me to contribute document under Apache license.

Jon: We can wait.

MikeM: I can check on this fairly quickly.

Jon: If we can resolve between next two weeks.

MikeM: Yes, let's do this offline in next two weeks.

Kevin: One thing. OpenAjax Alliance Member vs OpenAjax Alliance Conformant.

Jon: Right.

Kevin: Some of these might come to market as soon as January. Do we need to create commence creation of a second logo and add language about second logo?

Jon: Let's get this one out but start on it right away.

MikeM: We need mktg commmittee to tell us what this should be called.

Jon: (Talks about process issues.)

Kevin: Don't want to have these things hold up time to market. Want marketing committee to start immediately.

Jon: Does anyone object to unanimous consent to posting the Web pages once resolution of Mike's Eclipse public license review?

Kevin: You are saying that if Mike believes it is OK, then approve posting the Web page?

Jon: Yes.

(no objections)

RESOLUTION: Wait for Mike's analysis relative to EPL. OK to post the two legal pages after Mike completes study of EPL issue.

Jon: Other thing is 2nd generation white papers. I have proposed how to break down into 4 white papers. The AJAXWorld article matches article #2, Why Ajax.

David: January release?

Jon: Prints in January.

Interoperability committee

  • "Completion" of feature-complete, alpha-level source code and test case for 3/4 of Hub
  • To do on Hub: markup scanner (the other 1/4), JSUnit, JSDoc, the Spec, and test integrations with toolkits

Jon: Alex has suggested offline that the Interop committee should adopt more streamlined processes that rely more on email and IRC.

Alex: Wasn't expecting public discussion. I am an open source developer. I think we can use more asych communications methods. People need to be involved, but I think we have built-in review processes. My only point is that we have started around phone calls but doesn't scale well for some of the things to be done.

David: We are finding that people are slow to react and slow to get involved. If people don't get invovled, we will push ahead with open source.

Alex: The open source project is decoupled for all intents and purposes.

David: Question is that on the next call we need to say we need to streamline and wasting too much time.

Kevin: Can say it's hard to get people aligned with scheduled meetings.

Alex: That's a much more eloquent way of putting it.

MikeM: Better in terms of transparency.

Alex: And minutes aren't perfect.

Jon: I think we are in agreement. Any objections to talking about this at next interop phone call?

(none)

RESOLUTION: Discuss a more streamlined, faster process at next Interoperability phone call.

Task forces

  • IDE (no progress yet)
  • Server (kick-off meeting happened on Nov 15, surveys in process)
  • Communications Hub
    • Kick-off meeting, then meeting on 29November. (Coach is chair.)
  • Security
    • Report from meeting at Yahoo with WebAPIs WG

(Jon gives overview of task forces. With IDETF, Kevin is rounding up contributors but no meeting yet. ServerTF is making fast progress. Posted surveys of how existing server frameworks work. Waiting on Sun/JMaki to describe their framework, then move to use cases and requirements. Lots of coordination with other bodies that are addressing similar issues. Communications Hub making good progress. General consensus around Greg Wilkins' proposals. Right now talking about architecture issue about whether CommHub is just above XHR level or higher level.)

Coach: Yes, Converging on issues. Finished discussion on requirements and use cases. Trying to get into charter of Interop committee. Alex not on call yesterday, but need to connect to Alex offline.

(Jon says that no meetings of securityTF but various background activity, including going to meeting at Yahoo.)

Topic: Development Process

(Jon gives overview of current state. Only SAP/Shel Finkelstein has provided feedback, which has been discussed on mailing list.)

MikeM: Any reaction from Shel?

Jon: I think we are working together well to allow his suggestions to be reviewed.

David: I want to keep process streamlined. Not a standards body. Have to keep it simple. I put forth a few things. Hopefully we will get a good percetnage of us. Don't want a lot of process.

MikeM: I am comfortable with the way it is.

Alex: I think we have laid out our position.

David: I will be on the call on Wed.

MikeM: I will be on the call.

Coach: Yes.

Alex: I will try to attend.

Scott: I will attend.

Topic: Authorizating Jon to give new member press release quotes so long as straightforward like Helmi's

Jon: Can I be authorized to give quote?

+7

RESOLUTION: Jon can give new member press release quotes so long as they are straightforward

Scott: OK to validate partication with OpenAjax not products.

David: All in agremeent.

Topic: Authorizating Jon to post blogs so long as obviously consistent with mission, purpose and policies

  • In particular, blog entries about progress within committees and task forces

+7

All: Please blog!

RESOLUTION: Jon not only can blog on progress, but should blog on progress

Topic: Mobile Ajax

  • Alex's progress and discoveries
  • Phone call with W3C Mobile Web Initiative, suggestion of OpenAjax survey on Mobile Ajax
  • Nokia's demo at Ajax Experience, recent discussions with Nokia

David: As we are moving forward on desktop, Ajax is almost being a reality there. With Nokia and S60 browser, Ajax on mobile is happening. Time to reach out to operators and handset manufactureres. Have to figure out who is working on Mobile Ajax other than Nokia and Opera. Where will we see Mobile Ajax take root first. 3rd world companies using 3.5G, maybe less than a year. I am putting forth that we should begin looking at Mobile Ajax. Willing to put people from IBM on advancing Mobile OpenAjax, Jon and someone else. But where do you see the world moving?

Alex: As I said in October, it may be a little early.

David: But we need to start working on it.

MikeM: Are you saying that you will have an IBM employee talking about Mobile Ajax or OpenAjax Alliance?

MikeM: If an IBM employee wants to talk about Ajax on mobile, then why asking for us to approve?

David: Do you approve we should approve a working group to look at mobile ajax? Is this an adequate use and within charter? Second, should we invest some time in it? I am a person that believes in looking at the future. Unless we start looking, we might miss it.

Scott: I think there is a lot going for Ajax on mobile devices, but one of my fears, because of constraints, will propose alternative Ajax that will produce a split. I think we would do better if we broadened to mobile device.

David: I don't think we should split. Ultimately one space. BTW - Nokia doesn't see the split either.

Scott: If goal is to inform the Alliance about what to do to support mobile, 100% no brainer.

MikeM: Wait for DP to be finalized, then write proposal for new WG.

David: I agree. Hearing no issues, I will move forward and make proposals.

MikeM: I don't see any issues. If IBM wants to round up people to make a mobile WG, sounds like a fine thing to do.

Retrieved from "http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/Steering_Committee_Minutes_2006-11-30"
Personal tools