Date: April 14 2010

Agenda:

• Actions from previous meeting
  • Created QmImplementationReports for QM 1.0 implementation reports
  • Announced 2.0 specification effort on the community mailing list
  • Created QmScenariosV2 for V2 scenario discussion (more later)
  • Set V2 target date July 19 2010 (tentative, for discussion)
  • Created QmSpecificationCovenantV2 for capturing V2 IP covenants
  • Meeting with ScottFairbrother, PaulMcMahan, SamitMehta to discuss industry workgroup participation
    • Tieto is interested in continued participation
    • Scott has some other contacts in mind
• OSLC Core (OslcCore)

• V2 Scenarios
  • Discussion page at QmScenariosV2

Minutes:

• Reviewed action items
• Discussed potential work group participation from other companies. ScottFairbrother is engaging with some specific contacts and may have an update at the next work group meeting.
• Core specification
  • DaveJohnson helped explain "common" vs. "core" designation. The core specification is focused on the essential interfaces that serve as a basis for all lifecycle management providers. OSLC also provides guidance on common architectural considerations such as reporting.
  • Core spec will actually remain in convergence past 4/28 to allow more time for adoption and feedback from OSLC domain groups
  • Work group is strongly encouraged to review core spec and provide feedback in the wiki by next week. QM V2 intends to implement the core spec.
• QM V2 scenarios
  • CALM and traceability scenarios -- QM work group needs more input to determine which of these scenarios are most relevant and high profile across the OSLC community
    • Action PaulMcMahan to gather more input about these scenarios from OSLC leadership and other working groups such as RM and Automation
  • Reporting and Execution scenarios -- QM work group has good experience in this area and can start to craft scenarios for further discussion
    • work group should define reporting scenarios for both live and historical reports since these two types of scenarios have important differences
    • NigelLawrence has some experience with IEEE specification of ATML that may help define execution resources
    • MarceloPaternostro has test related UML models that may help communicate and discuss the execution scenarios