19 July 2012: OSLC Steering Committee meeting
Agenda
1. Review action items from last meeting and update status
[review] presented by Sean Kennedy
- Steve S./Sean K.: subscribe StC members to the existing public mailing list
- Steve S./Sean K.: provide the StC with tools for confidential collaboration
- it is being worked on, but for the short-term ad hoc methods will have to be used
- plan: WG wikis will have a way to mark a page “WG confidential”
- John W.: develop a more focused agenda item on “Given the vision, what is the next milestone to get OSLC closer to it?”
- part of the discuss we will have after the review of the “initial OSLC assessment” in this meeting;
- Sean K.: develop a preliminary assessment of the current state of OSLC, use the website as a starting point (membership, participation, implementation, usage)
- Communications WG: work on a prioritized backlog of initiatives to raise the profile of OSLC; bring back some thoughts to the StC
- Communications WG: consider adapting (potentially through a re-charter) to handle execution and management of those initiatives - also consider formalizing the relationship with the StC
- agreed to working as the “execution engine” of the StC, especially being driven by the prioritized backlog; will work on an updated charter to formalize
- see also the minutes of the July 13 Communications workgroup meeting
- someone(s), possibly the Comms WG: use John W.’s whitepaper as a starting point, take input from other community members and provide updated resources (another whitepaper, plus a 1-page highlight/summary)
- this is an entry for the execution backlog requested in #5
- Core WG: review the SCM re-chartering proposal and provide a recommendation to the StC
- current state, to be reviewed by the SCM WG on July 17, Core WG recommendation pending
- StC: refine the process of how we take up the responsibility of approving
- tactically addressed what to do for the SCM re-charter proposal, can formalize in the future
(top level copied from the previous meeting)
2. Proposal for Operations Coordinator
[discussion]
3. SCM WG re-charting
- [review] the recommendation from the Core WG
- [vote] on SCM re-chartering
4. OSLC today: initial assessment report
[review] presented by Sean Kennedy
5. Moving forward from Today’s OSLC
[discussion]
6. Scheduling future meetings
[discussion]
Proposal: use doodle one more time (for the August meeting), and use the selected time as the initial proposal for a regular meeting time (week of the month, day of the week, time of the day thereafter)
0. Next meeting
August meeting agenda
Attendees
Steering Committee
- Rainer Ersch, Senior Research Scientist at Siemens
- David Ingram, Executive Principal at Accenture
- Andreas Keis, Manager, Software Engineering at EADS Innovation Works UK
- Mik Kersten, CEO of Tasktop
- Bola Rotibi, Research Director at Creative Intellect
- John Wiegand, Distinguished Engineer and Chief Architect for IBM Rational (StC Chairman)
Presenters
- Sean Kennedy, IBM
- Steve Speicher, IBM
Observers
- Kartik Kanakasabesan, IBM
Minutes
1. Review action items from last meeting and update status
- Sean reviewed the action items and their results (reference the comments in the Agenda), progress made against every action item
- John W.: good to see that a lot got done
- Sean: clarification of how Comms WG re-charter will happen: drafting to happen off line; review in next Comms WG meeting, hopefully before the next StC meeting, can share the draft with the StC; ideally the StC can review/approve the charter at its next meeting
- Sean: prioritizing the list is a proposed topic for the August meeting
2. Proposal for Operations Coordinator
- Rainer provides background, says he agrees with the proposal
- Bola supports
- John W. proposes we move ahead to create this position
- Dave I.: agrees
- Agreement: OSLC Steering Committee Operations Coordinator role created and assigned to Sean Kennedy
3. SCM WG re-charting
- Steve S.: the Core WG supports its creation
- John W.: are the other questions/perspectives, business considerations we need to consider
- Dave I.: did some background reading, wants clarification on what is in scope under the new group, what will be covered w.r.t. software configuration management, and what’s not SCM?
- Steve S.: intent is that the scope provides a way to take resources and work with them as a configuration, will need clarify how and what parts of software are going to be covered by this workgroup
- Action item for Steve S.: connect with Nick Crossley to get more clarification for the StC
- Rainer: are we re-chartering the workgroup, or are we creating a new workgroup. what is our wording?
- Steve S.: treat it like re-scoping and rename, if SCM focus is needed it can be handled as a focus area
- John W.: seems we have 2 proposals for what to do with the existing SCM WG
- leave the existing SCM WG as something that may be returned to after and create a new ConfigMan WG
- close the SCM WG, open the ConfigMan WG with the opportunity to handle SCM as a focus area, or even an new WG in the future
- Bola: how many people are actively working in the SCM WG?
- Steve S.: in its active days it was 10, but it has been inactive
- Bola supports the second option
- Rainer: the change seems big enough that we shouldn’t be discussing a re-charter of the old one, but really a shutdown of the old one, and a creation of a new
- notice that old approach (looking at the details of SCM) failed, and so we’re taking a whole new approach: sorting out the common parts of general ConfigMan
- Mik: concerned about the messaging, there is a need for SCM interoperability:
- by moving to a completely generic ConfigMan WG, we’re signalling that OSLC won’t be doing this
- Rainer: the difficult part was trying to find a common way of expressing the details of the different SCM implementations, e.g. branching, labeling, etc.
- with the new way, we should still be able to facilitate SCM interoperability
- John W.: there is a high degree of agreement for a general ConfigMan WG, also we recognize that we’re in a bad spot with the existing SCM WG, the open question is what to do with the old group
- proposal: write up the different scenarios so we can evaluate them and make a decision
- Rainer: basically agrees, concerned about time, can we use email
- John W.: agrees with that concern, proposes that the email discussion begins 1 week from today
- Agreement: to work by email, it is even possible to resolve by email as well
- Action Item for John W., due 26 July 2012: define the possibilities and send to the mailing list
4. OSLC today: initial assessment report
- summary delivered by Sean
- Kartik: who are implementers?
- Sean: implementers are folks that are implementing OSLC for integrations, whether commercial, open source, or for “behind the firewall”, they could be specification authors but not necessarily
5. Moving forward from Today’s OSLC
- Rainer: main driver for more implementers is company support, that is why IBM does so much of this, open is fine, but don’t expect this coming from the individuals, but from companies
- Bola and Mik agree
- Rainer: not just vendors, but consumers and other orgs/communities/etc. too
- Bola: there is an appetite from large orgs to learn about OSLC, we should take the opportunity to help them learn and convert their interest into participation
- John: a lot of support for engaging big organizations
- Big vendors, big consumers, big ‘others’
- do we have this as our “prime directive”?
- Rainer: figure out who, and then tactics
- John W.: lets hand this work off to our OC, but StC members should be sure to chime in
- Action Item for Sean: send out a request for input from the StC on “WHO” and aggregate the responses
- Bola: don’t forget these target audiences: analyst and press communities
- Rainer: this could be something that fits for the Comms WG to do
- Bola: yes that would be fine
- reference note: there are already a couple items in the “idea list” related to this
- John W.: lets look back at that list of “who” for our next meeting
- Future topic: review the list of “big orgs” we should be targeting
- Rainer: would like to see the assessment document kept as a “living” document
- no further discussion as time was running out
- Action item for Rainer: open this subject on the mailing list, cover the benefits of doing so, and propose how we’ll cover the cost (in time) of doing so
6. Scheduling future meetings
- Agreement: establishing a regular meeting (week of month/day of week/time of day) is a good idea, if possible
- Action item for Sean: create a doodle for Aug 14
- Agreement: if a time of the 14th cannot be found, it may be that August is skipped
Agreements and Consensus in this meeting
- OSLC Steering Committee Operations Coordinator role created
- position assigned to Sean Kennedy
- work by email to further discuss options about what to do with the SCM workgroup, and how to explain the transition to the proposed Configuration Management workgroup
- it may be possible to agree on the solution by email as well
- Focus on engaging big organizations (big vendors, big consumers, big “others”) as the primary activity for the StC
- establishing a regular meeting (week of month/day of week/time of day) is a good idea, if possible
Action Items from this meeting
- Steve S.: connect with Nick Crossley to get more clarification for the StC
- John W., due 26 July 2012: define the options for the future of the SCM WG and how to explain the transition; send to the mailing list
- Sean: send out a request for input from the StC on “WHO” and aggregate the responses
- Rainer: open the subject of “keeping the initial assessment document as a living and ongoing assessment” on the mailing list, cover the benefits of doing so, and propose how we’ll cover the cost (in time) of doing so
- Sean: create a doodle for Aug 14
Future Agenda Topics from this meeting
- [review] the list of “big orgs” we should be targeting, [discussion] which should we pursue first
Category:Meeting agendas
Category:Meeting Minutes
