Steering Committee Minutes 2007-10-19
From MemberWiki
URL: http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/Steering_Committee_Minutes_2007-10-19
(These minutes have been approved.)
Contents
|
OpenAjax Alliance Steering Committee meeting minutes 2007-09-21
Attendees
- IBM/David Boloker
- MICROSOFT/Bertrand Le Roy
- Nexaweb/Coach Wei
- TIBCO/Kevin Hakman
- Jon Ferraiolo
Original Agenda
- Agenda
- Orientation for newest SC member, Bertrand
- Explanation of secret SC handshake and other important orientation information
- Zimbra special election
- PROPOSAL: Similar nominations and voting pages as most recent election
- QUESTION: Should people cast multiple votes (and invoke STV algorithm) or a single vote
- PROPOSED SCHEDULE:
- Monday Oct 22 - send email to member list announcing special election
- Monday Nov 12 - Sunday 25 - nominations open
- Nov 26-30: voting
- (NEW TOPIC) Steering Committee Chair
- PROPOSAL: David continues as chair until special election produces 7th SC member
- OpenAjax Hub 1.0 Release Review
- Per process defined at: http://www.openajax.org/process/DevelopmentProcess.pdf
- PROPOSAL:
- Monday Oct 22 - send email to interop@openajax.org asking if any objections to scheduling a release review, give until Wed. Oct 24 to respond
- Thursday Oct 25 - send email to member list announcing Release Review phone call
- Friday Nov 16 - Release Review phone call
- Nov 26-30 - Member voting
- Dec 3-7 - Steering Committee voting
- (NEW TOPIC) W3C Meeting lightning talk opportunity (3 minutes)
- PROPOSAL: Jon submits a talk about importance of taking Ajax libraries into account, with a provocative title such as "Does Ajax make W3C obsolete?"
- AJAXWorld articles - deadline is October 19, no OpenAjax articles submitted so far
- Jon will attend W3C meeting Nov 5-9, checking progress of various W3C initiatives and evangelizing Ajax and OpenAjax
- Review of status with our various committees
- Marketing WG - nothing going at right now, but will ramp up white papers on JSF and portals
- Interoperability WG - main focus in next month is Registry
- IDE WG - evaluating submitted metadata proposals (Adobe, Aptana, MS)
- Mobile TF - focus is on white paper
- Security TF - hoping that people will work on security resources wiki page
- PAM TF - nothing yet
- Searchability TF - nothing yet
- Runtime Advocacy TF - Alex & Jon have been batting around ideas
- Gadgets TF - IBM is supposed to submit a technical document as a possible starting point for discussion
- Orientation for newest SC member, Bertrand
Minutes
Topic: Bertrand Orientation
Jon: No secret handshake, but there are some clothing conventions
David: We have phone calls twice a month, sometimes more, sometimes less. Mostly work via email. Try not to make this too cumbersome. Big issue right now is replacing Zimbra.
Jon: Yes, most of the process issues have been settled and things are stable. We already worked through the Members Agreement and Development Process.
Topic: Zimbra replacement election
Jon: I am proposing that we conduct the special election just like the most recent election, using the same software and same relative timeframes. Announce on Monday. Nominations Nov 12-25. Voting Nov 26-30. Technical question - use STV or simple plurality to pick winner. We have used STV previously because we had multiple winners. Don't have to use STV this time. If we use simple plurality, voters just pick one candidate. With STV, votes pick multiple candidates in ranked order.
Bertrand: Why use STV? Just pick one candidate. The one with the most votes wins. Easiest to understand and most transparent.
Kevin: (Talks about 2000 presidential election where smaller candidate took away votes from a major candidate, probably affecting the election. Mentions how STV allows voters to choose their favorite candidate as their top choice without feeling they might have wasted their vote.)
Bertrand: Simpler if there was just one choice, but I don't have strong feelings about this.
Jon: How about everyone just votes their preference and pick either plurality or STV based on which gets the most votes.
Bertrand: OK.
Jon: I'll send email after the meeting so everyone can vote.
Kevin: Is there a chance that we could propose to members that the next place finishers from the previous election become winners for the replacement seat?
Jon: Would be nice, but I don't think we can do that. Lots of issues. People voted in the recent election for 2-year seats, whereas this replacement seat is for less than one year. People might have voted differently if they knew. Someone might complain if we attempted this.
Jon: Any objections to my proposals for timing and process for the special election?
(no objections)
Jon: OK, I'll send email on Monday to the OpenAjax members announcing the special election.
Topic: Steering Committee chair
Jon: The Members Agreement says that the SC elects a chair to schedule and run meetings. So, we have to have a chair. David has been it so far. I propose that we leave David as SC chair until after the special election, at which point then we look at it again. David is good as SC chair because he has one of the more complicated travel schedules.
Kevin: I'm OK with this proposal.
Bertrand: Yes
Jon: Any objections?
(no objections)
( Coach joins, run through previous decisions, which he approves)
Topic: OpenAjax Hub 1.0 Release Review
Jon: At our face-to-face meeting, we agreed to take OpenAjax Hub 1.0 to Release Review. However, some people did not attend. I propose sending email to Interop WG asking if anyone objects to going to Release Review. Send email on Monday. Have until Wed. to respond. If no objections, then schedule the Release Review phone call for Nov. 16, which is 3 weeks later as required by Development Process. Then member voting and then Steering Committee voting. This means two votes the week of Nov 26, but I think that's ok.
Coach: Schedule is fine.
Kevin, David: Fine with me.
Jon: Any objections?
(no objections)
Topic: Proposed W3C lightning talk "Does Ajax Make W3C Obsolete?"
Jon: 3 minute lightning talk opportunity at upcoming W3C meeting. Purposefully provocative title to attract interest, but slide deck would say "No, but..." and then explain how Ajax needs to be taken into account.
Coach: Great title.
David: Can't improve that title. Perfect.
Kevin: Could consider hare and tortoise metaphor. Ajax allows for more rapid impact. Complementary approaches.
(no objections to submitting)
Topic: AJAXWorld articles
David: When?
Jon: Goes out in Dec or Jan. Deadline today.
David: No choice but to skip this round.
Topic: Committees
Marketing
Jon: Next big thing are white papers on JSF and portals. ILOG leading this.
Kevin: Separate white papers?
Jon: I don't knowfor sure.
Coach: Probably separate. ILOG already has separate white papers.
Jon: Yeah. Oracle also has separate white papers. Also, we have to be careful about how these articles are packaged. If Java-specific, then either make that clear or genericize for non-Java environments.
Interoperability
Jon: Focus for next 2 months is Registry. Hoping parallel progress on open source side with experimental implementations of OpenAjax Hub 1.1
IDE
Kevin: Last few weeks we have been reviewing high-level proposals from Adobe, Aptana and MS. Got great understanding with how each addresses some of our key requirements. Found that they complement each other. Identified 3 or 4 test cases that we will use to evaluate detailed proposals. Reasonable to have something by end of year. Very strong turnout at last phone call, about 10 people.
PAM and Searchability
Jon: Haven't seen any activity yet
Runtime
Jon: Alex and I have exchanged ideas on how to get this started. Have sent to Coach.
Coach: I need to review. We have started on a list of topics. I am thinking about how to collect the ideas we have into a document.
Jon: I think 1st quarter is critical timing. Need to ship a version 1 list then to get serious consideration for FF4, Safari4 and IE9. Do people agree with my worry about missing boats?
David/Coach: I think that is the right timing.
Gadgets
Jon: My understanding is that IBM will have a technical document ready for review sometime today. David, is that right?
David: Yes.
