Date: Wednesday, 2 Feb 2011

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

Previous minutes: CmMeetings20110119

Agenda:

• Reoccurring agenda items:
  • Recap of previous meeting CmMeetings20110119
  • Community updates
  • Implementation updates
  • Specification Issues Review CmSpecV2Issues, closed 3, 1 open
• Main agenda items:
  • 2010 / CM 2.0 Retrospective:
    • Discuss what worked well, what didn't, etc.
    • Not limited to specs or scenarios, but also process, etc.
  • Goal is to finalize catalog of scenarios and prioritize for spec work
  • Identify specification needs/approach to support prioritized scenarios: CmScenarios
  • 3.0 Themes CmArchitecturalDirectionV3
• Next meetings:
  • Feb 16 - Elaborate on scenarios, identify specification needs

Minutes:

Attendees: SteveSpeicher, SamPadgett, SamLee, BrianSteele, SamitMehta, DaveJohnson, RobertElves, SofiaYeung,

Regrets: AndreWeinand, ScottBosworth,

• Reoccurring agenda items:
  • Recap of previous meeting CmMeetings20110119
  • Community updates
    • SORI out, Simple OSLC Reference Implementation on Sourceforge, see https://sourceforge.net/projects/oslc-tools/
  • Implementation updates
  • Specification Issues Review CmSpecV2Issues, closed 3, 1 open
• Main agenda items:
  • 2010 / CM 2.0 Retrospective:
    • Discuss what worked well, what didn't, etc.
    • Not limited to specs or scenarios, but also process, etc.
    • SteveSpeicher
      • Improvements: need more lead time for prototyping / validating approaches (state transitions), need to better capture history (what was discussed, what was rules out and why, what led us to the final spec solution proposed), ref impl / test suite (see previous), need more participation/contribution on topics, need for better/more supporting material (primer, etc) before building out too much
      • Worked well: implementation report matrix, good attendance and discussion on topics.
    • BrianSteele
      • Issues: big changes between 1.0 and 2.0 costly, more examples / reference impl.
    • SamitMehta
      • Worked well: good feedback from partners on delegated ui
      • Issues: similar feedback from partners, lack of shape support and unattended creation
    • RobertElves:
      • Worked well: process wise seems to being going as planned, ref impl will be very valuable
      • Issues: client side perspective, from v2, don't have much feedback on this. How SF project and Mylyn link up, need to see how this works
    • SamPadgett
      • Worked well: core wg push for common concepts, scenario driven specification
      • Issues: more test suite coverage / ref impl, primer needed
    • SamLee
      • Worked well: similar view as mentioned
      • Issues: feedback received that stricter rules on changes to specification (not sure this is something that we need to change), improve the process, be good to have access to live access to servers as specs evolve
    • DaveJohnson
      • Worked well: process works well
      • Issues: would like to have process change to have rough consensus and running code, decision making process to in request conf calls
    • SofiaYeung
      • Worked well: echo others comments
      • Issues: want reference impl and access to live servers, delegated UIs don't work well from rich clients: state transitions, etc
    • ACTION on Steve to consolidate retrospective feedback and suggest plan
  • Attachments feedback from core:
    • ACTION: Steve & Robert will work on elaborating the scenarios and finding any potential spec needs
  • ACTION to all to validate CmScenarios content and priorities
• Next meetings:
  • Feb ?? - working session on technical items: attachments for CM, etc
  • Feb 16 - Elaborate on scenarios, identify specification needs

Update with any corrections