[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Minutes, 23 February 2010 DITA TC Meeting
"Gregarious vendors"? Fond of company? Sociable? ?-> > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Day [mailto:dond@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:55 AM > To: DITA TC list > Subject: [dita] Minutes, 23 February 2010 DITA TC Meeting > > > (See attached file: 23Feb2010Minutes.txt) > > These are also pasted in the calendar notice for last week's > DITA TC meeting. > > Regards, > -- > Don Day > Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee > Architect, Lightweight DITA Publishing Solutions > Email: dond@us.ibm.com > 11501 Burnet Rd. MS9033E015, Austin TX 78758 > Phone: +1 512-244-2868 (home office) > > "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? > Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" > --T.S. Eliot > > Agenda for 23 February 2010 DITA TC Meeting/Call > > >Minutes taken by Don Day > > 8:00-8:05 Roll call > > Approve minutes from previous business meetings: > * > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00055.html > (16 Feb, 2010 Day) > o http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00072.html > (Eberlein corrections) > > Don moved, was seconded; carried by acclamation > > Subcommittee/liaison reports > > skipped for today > > Business: > > 1. ITEM: DITA 1.2 specification > > Kristen led the discussion for this section: > > * Business (edited by Joseph for 16 February TC meeting): > a. Check on status of Mime type topic > o Status update from Don > o When ready, need to submit for TC review > > Don has not had an update. Kristen suggested moving this item to > > Ongoing > for tracking; we'll go with the plan of record > > ACTION for DON: create a short topic with the proposed non-normative > appendix, to be written this week. > > b. Status of authors' work handling review #3 comments: > > Kristen asked person by person about status. Concern about losing > momentum--let's stay focused on these known work items. Would > like to see goal of March 1 for completion. > > Gershon has an upcoming business trip affecting his availability. > Estimates March 14 for his completions. > > Eliot has reviewed topics under specialization. Discussion > about dates > > on > tables. > > Eliot had volunteered to do appendices. > > ACTION for ELIOT: reivew the wiki pages wrt appendices table ACTION > > for KRISTEN: update the appendices table to reflect Eliot as the > author. > > c. Overlapping/redundant content issue > o > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archiv > es/201002/msg00010.html > (Eberlein, 2 February 2010) > o Check where we are with authors updating their > topics to mark comments on redundant content > o Are we ready for the next step (SWAT team meeting)? > o Gershon has dealt with the collation topic > (removed topic from > map) > > Would non-writer volunteers scan the reviewer comments for > any obvious > redundant area by Monday? (fresh eyes on the problem) > > Rob Frankland volunteered > > Michael Priestley > > Sue-Laine > > Kristen--we'll assume the remaining areas have been > sufficiently cleared. > > Jeff, Michael, Robert, Gershon for the SWAT team (Eliot > would like to > > but > will be travelling) > > ACTION for KRISTEN: set up the meeting (before March 9) > > d. Revise schedule to accommodate the following items: > o Extension on deadline for review #3 (four days) > o An additional review for the SubjectScheme topic > in the arch spec (new content, never reviewed) > o An additional review for the rewritten Conformance topic > o An additional internal review cycle (review #4) > o Need to address the overlapping/redundant content problem > o Need to review prototypes of documentation for > the various packages > > Eliot will press for Monday reviews. > > Kristen will set up schedules based on the March 9 exit > date for the > > SWAT > team plan of attack. > > e. Acknowledgments in DITA 1.2 spec -- what should > they contain? > o > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archiv > es/201002/msg00033.html > (Eberlein, 9 February 2010) > o > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00067.html > (Grosso reset discussion) > o > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00089.html > (Mary McRae opinion) > > Kristen quoted this OASIS goal in her amendment. > "Individuals who have > actively participated"--how do we interpret this phrase? > > Don agreed with Jeff's suggestion that we put a stake in the ground. > Kristen proposed a single list of acknowledgments that should include: > * Authors of feature proposals > * Authors of specification topics > * Reviewers of specification topics > * Implementors of DTDs and Schemas > Bruce seconded. Discussion about contributions of folks no > longer in the TC. > > ACTION for DON: compile this list as Chair's responsibility. > > f. Conformance refinement: Use of "claims to be DITA aware" > o > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00068.html > (Kimber opening note) > o > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201002/msg00086.html > (Ogden discussion reset) > > Jeff noted one open question: for the list of things supported/not > supported, was this dropped out of the conformance topic? > > Sue-Laine had requested its removal since the statement could be > > padded > by gregarious vendors. > > Jeff notes that customers are the final judges of truth of vendor > statements. > > Sue-Laine: a simple list might be too simple. Could we ask > vendors to > > be > more detailed about what their support means? > > Eliot: what can you require vendors to state? > > MP: suggests that the Adoption TC could take on the customer/vendor > aspects of this discussion, to help contextualize claims. > > Dana: still considers this is worth opening for 1.3. > > Kristen: How can we help send our concerns over to the Adoption TC? > > Jeff: They could create a buyer's guide that includes a set of tests > against claims. For the DITA TC, they could create its own > list of what is and is not considered fundamental DITA capability. > > ACTION for GERSHON: as our liaison to the Adoption TC, he > will convey > these intents to them within the approval cycle for 1.2. > > Closed the open question of "what vendors should do" with > that action > > Jeff notes we still need to get them to list conformance, > and there is > the issue of evidence of support. > > Eliot also proposed #4--that you list the document types if that is > > what > you support (processing extensions) > > Jeff: yes, and allow vendors to state how they support key > references, > for example. > > Eliot: concern about implicit claims > > Jeff: vendors should be able to make honest statements, allow > > customers > to judge the claims. > > Eliot: agreed, if we had such a crisp list of features. > > MP: suggests that we continue with previous example of > saying nothing, > work in future on the essential list but not as input to current spec. > > Sue-Laine went back to Eliot's "#4" as better than nothing? Fine for > Jeff, but it only goes part of the way. > > Eliot is okay with such a statement, but notes that we > can't state it > > too > firmly without a solid list. > > Jeff moves to accept Eliot's statement, Sue-Laine suggested > refinements. > Since callers were dropping off, Don declared loss of quorum > and recommended this motion be developed on the list for the > TC's review next week. > > > Meeting adjourned 3 minutes past the hour. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]