Interoperability Minutes 2006-09-13
From MemberWiki
Full minutes: http://www.openajaxalliance.org/member/wiki/index.php/Interoperability_Minutes_2006-09-13
Contents |
Attendees
- Arno Puder <arno@puder.org>
- Chris Matthews <cmatthews@elinkbiz.com>
- Chris Schalk <chris.schalk@oracle.com>
- David Boloker <boloker@us.ibm.com>
- Erik van Dongen <evandongen@seagullsoftware.com>
- Greg Murray <greg.murray@sun.com>
- Kevin Hakman <khakman@tibco.com>
- Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Kin Blas <jblas@adobe.com>
- Steve Adams <sadman@curl.com>
- Ted Thibodeau <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
- Victor Leith <vsleith@us.ibm.com>
Absent
- Adam Peller <apeller@us.ibm.com>
- Alex Russell <alex@dojotoolkit.org>
- Bert Halstead <rhh@curl.com>
- Bjoern Mueller <Bjoern.Mueller@softwareag.com>
- Bradley Sipes <Bradley.Sipes@ikivo.com>
- Brodi Beartusk <bbeartus@bea.com>
- Chris Jolley <jolleyc@bea.com>
- Coach Wei <coach@nexaweb.com>
- Craig McClanahan <craig.mcclanahan@sun.com>
- David Frankel <david.frankel@sap.com>
- David Kranz <kranz@curl.com>
- David Temkin <temkin@laszlosystems.com>
- Eddie O\'Neil <ekoneil@bea.com>
- Eric Nguyen <ericn@mercedsystems.com>
- Gary Horen <ghoren@bea.com>
- Gustavo Munoz <gustavom@jackbe.com>
- Hyther Nizam <hyther@adventnet.com>
- Ian Wenig <ian@zoho.com>
- James Douma <jdouma@ebusiness-apps.com>
- James Margaris <jmargaris@nexaweb.com>
- Jason Wadsworth <wadsbone@thefrontside.net>
- Javier Gallego <Javier.Gallego@softwareag.com>
- Jennifer Taylor <jetaylor@adobe.com>
- Jeremy Chone <jchone@adobe.com>
- John Crupi <john.crupi@jackbe.com>
- John Janetos <jjanetos@laszlosystems.com>
- Joonas Lehtinen <joonas.lehtinen@itmill.com>
- Jorge Taylor <jotaylor@adobe.com>
- Juan Dexeus <Juan.Dexeus@in2.es>
- Ken Fyten <ken.fyten@icesoft.com>
- Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Lindsey Simon <lsimon@finetooth.com>
- Luke Birdeau <lbirdeau@tibco.com>
- Marc Englund <marc.englund@itmill.com>
- Michael Peachey <mpeachey@tibco.com>
- Patrick Chanezon <chanezon@google.com>
- Phil Berkland <berkland@us.ibm.com>
- Rama Gurram <rama.gurram@sap.com>
- Raju Vegesna <raju@zoho.com>
- Ross Dargahi <ross.dargahi@zimbra.com>
- Ruben Daniels <ruben@javeline.nl>
- Rüdiger Herrmann <rherrmann@innoopract.de>
- Sami Ekblad <sami.ekblad@itmill.com>
- Steven Pothoven <pothoven@us.ibm.com>
- Vishnu Vettrivel <vvettrivel@vircon.com>
- William Shulman <will@mercedsystems.com>
Agenda
- Agenda
- Contributor license agreements
- Minutes from special meeting: Special CLA Minutes 2006-09-08
- RESOLUTION: Contributors who are working in SourceForge project on behalf of Members (i.e., Members who have signed the Members Agreement and had that agreement accepted by Steering Committee) can just send an email with boilerplate language available from the SourceForge project's home page stating that they are contributing on behalf of Member company <enter-company-name-here> and understand that their contributions are being made under the terms of the IPR policy from the Members Agreement. Non-member committers must print boilerplate language available from the SourceForge project's home page stating that contributions are made under the terms of the IPR policy from the Members Agreement, and then sign the hardcopy and send it to the Alliance.(EDITORIAL NOTE: We did not reach a decision about what happens with contributions from people who are non-members and non-committers. Two subcategories here: substantial contributions from non-member non-committers, and small contributions from non-member non-committers.)
- Discussion/feedback on Steering Committee election process (first-draft proposal)
- Discussion/feedback on face-to-face meeting agenda (first-draft proposal)
- Contributor license agreements
Topic: Discussion/feedback on Steering Committee election process (first-draft proposal)
DavidB: Did everyone see the Instant Run-off Voting process?
Jon: Eclipse uses a similar solution, Single Transferrable Vote instead of Instant Run-off Voting. Both promote election of consensus candidates and avoid split-voting problems where a candidate preferred by a minority is elected due to split votes among candidates preferred by the majority. The problem with the wikipedia entry on STV is that it doesn't define a complete algorithm. I have sent email to Mike Milinkovich of Eclipse to ask for details.
Jon: So far, the consensus is that people don't seem to care about the counting method except that it meets our critical criteria of well documented, established, fair, and reasonable appropriate. My proposal is to pick one of these two. But STV only if it looks good after further study.
Resolution: Everyone agrees that we use one of IRV or STV.
Jon: Votes are sent by email from the primary contact that is identified as part of the process of submitting a signed Members Agreement.
Resolution: Everyone agrees with primary contact submitting vote.
Jon: Nominations are managed via the wiki page.
Resolution: Everyone agrees with nominations via the wiki page
Topic: Discussion/feedback on face-to-face meeting agenda (first-draft proposal)
DavidB: Our mission is to conform and interoperate. Communication across widgets. We need to discuss a way to declare conformance, versus compliance which is costly for everyone. Are market forces enough of an answer?
Jon: W3C uses conformance criteria as the hammer to drive compatibility.
David: And 2 implementations of specs?
Jon: Actually, 2 implementations of each feature in each spec.
Jon: Any other comments on agenda?
(No comments)
Jon: Who will attend?
Kin: Attendance questionnable. Lots of deadlines around then. Our big concern is runtime interoperability, the ability to plug 3rd party widgets into Spry.
ChrisS: We might participate in runtime panel or tools panels. Oracle is doing fusion middleware components and JDeveloper. We might or might not open up some of the things we are facing.
Erik: Seagull won't be there.
Steve: Curl probably won't attend.
Greg: Will be there. We could do an update with mobility people. I can talk about my runtime effots.
Ted: Unlikely but still a possibility. Unlikely to do a presentation.
Arno: Plan to be there. Maybe do a presentation.
Jon: I am likely to say something in the mobile session.
Vic: I won't be there, but listen in to audio conference.
Kevin: Would be valuable to present on interoperability challenges will mixing dojo, yahoo into Tibco GI
ChrisM: Will be at meeting also. Working on a proposal for a topic.
Topic: Contributor license agreements
(Jon reviews current status. We have had meetings previously and resolved most issues. Only remaining issue is about non-member contributors. Do we require signatures for non-member committers? Do we require signatures for non-member, non-committers?)
Ted: It would be reasonably sufficient for non-members to say they agree with IP agreement. But is email sufficient to state this?
Jon: IBM's lawyer told us on Friday that there is a continuum. At the end of the spectrum there is highest confidence if there is a signed piece of paper and two witnesses of the signature. Then signature without witnesses. Then email.
David: Problem with email is that there can be questions about whether it was really submitted by the person.
Ted: So, anyone making substantial contributions would have to sign. What is substantial? Where do we draw the line?
DavidB: Why I asked the question.
Ted: Because of the gray area, everyone should sign. And then fax it in.
DavidB: Agreed. What about a 3-line fix? If no IP in the 3 lines, ok, otherwise won't accept without signature.
Ted: Delegate review and judgment to committers about trivial contributions.
Jon: We could set committer requirements that says need to review of all contributions to make sure signature in place or trivial without IP before anything is committed.
Vic: I think that is reasonable.
Jon: Anyone object?
(No one objects)
Resolution: Non-members have to sign. OK to fax. Exception is trivial contributions such as 3 lines or less. Committers will have requirements to review all contributions to determine if contributor has sent in signed agreement and if not whether contribution is trivial and without patentable algorithms.
Jon: I will present this to the interim steering committee (Editorial note: this was approved by ISC later the same day) and update the sourceforge web site to reflect this.
