OASIS ebXML Collaboration Protocol Profile and Agreement TC
ebXML CPPA Technical Committee Teleconference
April 26, 2002
DM: Agenda item 1.a Voting statistics. 14 For, 5 Pending, Dale traced Brian Hayes. Hoping to clarify IPR issues. Suggested to split up IPR issues with approval of specification.
DM: Agenda item 1.b IPR follow-ups.
DM: Oasis (Karl) is discussing with IBM - issues with IPR situation. Karl also mentioned that they are looking into getting the license statement more official. Other issues - How this relates to open source effort? Openebxml.org has halted development on CPPA pending clarification of issues. JSR is also figuring out what's happening. No updates from JCP org yet.
JC: Bob Sutor's statement was helpful, but issue hasn't gone away. Issue for some open source implementations. Mentioned about Reference implementations from openebxml.org and Sybase. Curious whether voting should be halted to get more clarity to issue - so that people would not vote against the spec. One implication would be the quarterly release of specification. Feels may not make a major impact on implementations even delayed. But major issue would be if the specification gets voted NO.
DM: Will slow the adoption - JSR, if the specification is delayed.
JC: Close voting and have the risk of NO votes. Karl is talking to IBM to get written assurance and perpetual.
DM: How long is this process?
JC: Few days, thinks... Normal time could be a week or two?
DM: We can decide to extend the period.
DF: What's the time schedule? Requesting clarification from Dale
DM: Approve 1.9 - get comments from general public, rolled into 2.0 version, vote again after 2.0 to make it a public specification before June 1, and round up implementers (three). Use the time to get public comments and more implementation experience.
DF: IF we've to vote again, no reason to extend the vote.
DM: Jamie brought up some disconcert level, may be get people not to abstain.
JC: soliciting initial public comments, implementation experience, issue final spec incorporating comments to be submitted to oasis for final voting. This group will get another chance to say NO before the final specification.
SD: Vote today is no way binding to the vote for final specification.
DM: Yes..., All we are saying is 1.9 available, preparation for a plan to submit a 2.0 specification to OASIS.
JC: People voted YES could change it to NO later after going through public review process.
DM: Different from other specifications, use this time to change the specification before being submitted.
BH: Will team make a statement about IPR?
DM: We've a copyright, may be an issue for implementers (OS). Question to the group?
MS: Any statement should be cleared by OASIS.
TF: Confusion that voting was for Oasis specification.
JC: It's not being recommended for implementation, will look at it again if it's a TC standard.
Advance for public review.
HM: question about (recommended for implementation?)
JC: Not final until public review is completed.
JC: Resolution: Advancing spec for public review, not intended for final specification until public review and final voting is completed.
Kartha seconded it with addition that we vote again.
KN: Clarification will help it.
DM: Adopted resolution unanimously.
KN: Issue about IPR policy, apply for license but have to go through process anyway. Can we take care of this?
DM: Karl is talking about this with IBM.
DM: Vote ends tonight, will send email with the outcome of vote. How do the votes get documented?
JC: Suggests talk to Karl.
DM: Do votes have to be sent to public list?
JC: Would like to see a summary of votes.
PO: Why can't dale put peoples names?
DM: Resolution: Voter mailing list will see the ballots (who voted for what), Public CPPA list will see the total result.
DM: Discussion about transient channel.... (Chuck Fenton from Sterling Commerce/ AIAG). Would like to include for June agenda. YS has some comments about examples, happenings from pacific rim, would like to talk at next F2F about this.
PO: Cyclone commerce will host the conf call for next month
MS: Need critical mass on negotiation.
DM: Will try to draft a statement about the motion proposed.
JC: Helpful to have something to read to people.
KN: Looking forward to what comes out of the discussions with IBM.
DM: Will convey this groups interest on this issue.