Date: Wednesday, 16 December 2009

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

Agenda:

• Call for last minute agenda changes
• Update on outstanding Actions see CmMeetingsActions
• Review Code Review Scenario
• Review update on any CmScenarios
• Review of CmCommonProperties
  • Review product mappings and gaps
  • Identify which properties should be considered for 2.0 - spreadsheet updated and drafted working draft at CmResourceDefinitionsV2
  • Discussion around need to carefully define Project and Component: suggestions were around defining them in generic terms as "context" (Project) and "subtext" (Component) for hierarchal systems, though there may be a need for tagged-based model (Google code).
• Discussion on schema/meta-data requirements
• Progress on 2.0 specs
  • Prioritize scenarios
  • Define scope - CmArchitecturalDirectionV2
  • Milestone plans
  • Progress on extending participation - both as WG participants and implementations
• 1.0 spec maintenance items
  • Feedback from implementations CmImplementationReports
  • CmSpecificationIssueTracking
• Next meetings: 6-Jan-2010

Minutes:

Attendees: SteveSpeicher, AndreWeinand, BrianSteele, SamLee, MatsGothe, DenisTyrell, SamitMehta, MikKersten, RobertElves

Regrets: MarkRinger, SteveAbrams, ScottBosworth

• Call for last minute agenda changes
• ClearQuest? 7.1.1 shipped with native OSLC support
• Update on action items
  • RobertElves to supply auth survey info from existing connectors. Said mostly form-based and http basic, will update minutes or in ScenariosMylyn
• Review of updated scenario CmScenarioReviews
  • ACTION DenisTyrell to update with high-level summary of specification needs
  • ACTION WG to review vote on this scenario for inclusion on 6-Jan-2010 meeting
• No updates on any other scenario
• Review of common properties and proposed 2.0 CmResourceDefinitionsV2:
  • Updated spreadsheet to show proposed 2.0 properties, moved scenarios column next to fields to better align usage with need.
  • Discussion on related property, whether to have it be extensible via arbitrary types like "reviews" or to require a new property to be supplied. Proposal is to have defined properties with known semantics: for example parent/child would explicity be properties while related could be treated as unspecified relationship which is uni-directional and light-weight (no cross-repository semantics)
  • Discussion on how to discover unsupported properties as some CM providers don't support some of the concepts. Added list of outstanding issues for property definition.
  • Requests to bring in properties Comments and Severity
  • ACTION SteveSpeicher to update CmCommonProperties page with latest work
• CM 2.0 Roadmap
  • Current roadmap may be too agressive for desired scenarios. Next meeting (6-Jan) will have proposed updated roadmap.
• Next meeting 6-Jan-2010