Date: Wednesday, 10 June 2009

Time: 12:00 PM Eastern, 9:00 AM Pacific, 6:00 PM Zurich
(contact SteveSpeicher if you'd like to participate)

Agenda:

• Feedback and impressions from Rational Software Conference
• Retrospective on 1.0 efforts
• 1.0 spec maintenance items
  • Feedback from implementations CmImplementationReports
  • Issue tracking
• Progress on 2.0 specs
  • Define scope

Minutes:

Attendees: SteveSpeicher, AndreWeinand, SamitMehta, RobertElves, MikKersten, JayGillibrand, SteveAbrams, RandyVogel

Feedback and impressions from Rational Software Conference

• SteveAbrams OSLC was very well received across the board
• MikKersten also noticed the level of interested in OSLC
• RandyVogel many good discussions as well, including business partners
• SteveSpeicher witnessed interest at all levels: customers, integrators (other Rational product teams)
• AndreWeinand heard about OSLC from many people, were happy to see spec completed and products supporting

• MikKersten
  • Works well: implementations is key in making it all work
  • Needs improvement: need for reference implementation for service providers, something easier to work with without requiring timely legal approvals, be good to have a task tracker and forum threads
• General discussion on involvement with additional implementors and spec involvement: all to take action to pursue this
• RandyVogel
  • Works well: meetings and wikis all went well, as well as level our design feedback, sometimes it went in fair amount detail
• SamitMehta
  • Needs improvement: startup for implementations access is needed, possibly looking at expanding scenarios to get more people involved
• ScottBosworth
  • Works well: implementations working in progress with spec worked well and could
  • Needs improvement: dealing with maturing as a site, across OSLC: shared components; share more info via group email
• AndreWeinand
  • Works well: echoing previous comments where implementations are key
  • Needs improvement: areas may be harder to adopt when specifications priorities and scenarios diverge from some product requirements.
• RobertElves
  • Needs improvement: need for a test site (reference implementation) to get access to; better consideration of programatic consumption of the spec; would prefer a non-Web (non-JavaScript) version of the dialogs for consumption in tools like Eclipse
• SteveAbrams
  • Works well: echoing previous comments where implementations are key; scope was key
  • Needs improvement: could have spent more time to make it simpler; make sure products continue; common concepts challenges
• SteveSpeicher
  • Works well: agreement on spec and impl in parallel
  • Needs improvement: make sure discussions and work is all on wiki and public

Next meeting 24 June 2009 12:00 ET