Date: Thursday, 22 September 2011

Time: 9:00 AM Central (contact MichaelFiedler if you'd like to participate)

Agenda

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Follow-ups
   • Make sure you subscribe to oslc-automation mailing list -- http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net
3. Discuss future meeting time and frequency
4. Review/discuss high-level scenario descriptions
5. For next several meetings:
   • Report on previous action items
   • Discussion on one (maybe two) specific scenarios
     • Ensure scenario is complete from end-to-end
     • Determine what artifacts are needed to support the scenario
     • Determine what properties of artifacts are needed to support the scenario
     • Determine any cross-spec linkages
     • Adjust scope where necessary -- some (or all) of the scenario may need to wait for a future version of the spec
6. Decide on first scenario to go into detail on (suggestion is basic CLM scenario)

Minutes

Introductions

• Charles Rankin - IBM Rational BuildForge?
• Michael Fiedler - IBM Rational OSLC Community
• Pete Steinfeld - IBM Rational Jazz build team
• Robert Elves - Tasktop/Eclipse Mylyn
• Lucas Panjer - Tasktop/Eclipse Mylyn
• Winston Prakash - Oracle/Eclipse Hudson
• John Arwe - IBM Tivoli standards lead
• Pramod Chandoria - IBM Rational Quality Manager
• Vaibhav Srivastava - IBM Rational Quality Manager
• Thomas Spatzier - IBM Tivoli Service Automation Manager
• David Brauneis - IBM Rational Automation Frameworks
• Eric Bordeau - IBM Rational Asset Manager
• Paul McMahan? - IBM Rational Quality Manager
• Sri Gunturi - IBM Rational Asset Manager
• Barys Dubauski - IBM Rational Jazz build team
• Scarlett Li - IBM Rational Quality Manager
• Paul Tasillo - IBM Rational Quality Manager

Meeting time

• agreement to alternate starting time to accommodate global team
• possibly put a poll up on doodle.com

High level scenario discussion

• Creation of Automation Plans likely outside the scope of the first draft of the spec
• Data linking scenario
  • What are the basic linking relationships to be defined?
  • Need to detail the scenario - how do tools see themselves consuming these links? Traceability, execution, reporting, etc.
    • E.g. Quality Management consumers of Automation interested in linking to Automation Results and initiating execution of Automation plans

• Automation execution
  • Prior initial draft of the Automation spec only deals with Automation Plans and Automation Results. Likely need to address execution this time.
  • Possible execution approaches
    • Creation of Automation Result with state indicating execution is requested
    • Creation of intermediate Automation Request
      • could be transient or permanent - not all tools have this concept - required vs optional
      • container for execution parameters
      • possible vehicle for pause/resume, cancel, purge concepts * Manual initiation of an automation plan
  • access to rich interaction in an automation tool via delegated UI
  • tool can provide constraints/prompts for parameters, scheduling etc
• Defining workflows across automation providers
  • What scenarios are there for cross-tool parameter validation and parameter passing?
  • How to enforce consistency of parameters across automations in workflow, if desired?
  • What are the scenarios for building up automation workflows from sub-automations
• Contributions to Automation Results
  • Could be generic or tool-specific
  • Which contributions are valid for the specification?
• Notification
  • Polling vs eventing/callback - future topic
• Agent/Worker registration
  • Future topic

Next Meeting

• Begin drill down on data linking scenario