Technical Team/Minutes/2012-04-11 - Revision history

MartinMichlmayr: Convert to MediaWiki syntax

2013-03-06T14:11:46Z

Convert to MediaWiki syntax

Goneall at 21:54, 11 April 2012

2012-04-11T21:54:36Z

Show changes

Goneall at 21:54, 11 April 2012

2012-04-11T21:54:04Z

New page

Minutes 4/10/2012Attendees:·         Gary O’Neall·         Bill Schineller·         Kirsten Newcomer·         Kate Stewart·         Jack Manbeck·         Ed WarnickeAgenda:1.       overview Linux Collab meetings and SPDX summit.2.       1.1 new optional field proposal: File Comments<a href="https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1017">https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1017</a>3.       2.0 Use Case - status of fill in, owners for remaining?Overview Linux collab Meeting: All attendees on the call participated in the face 2 face meeting File comments proposal (<a href="https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1017">https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1017</a>) ·         Proposal was reviewed·         Added detail to the proposal that a property rdfs:comment would be added to file·         Specific us cases discussed (captured in the use case wiki – “tribal knowledge” relating to a file and file origin information·         Concern raised that the comment may better be served by other extension mechanismso   Agreed that a possibly more proper extension mechanism is a topic for 2.0 and not 1.1·         Proposal to generalize the definition of the current file license commento   Concern this may cause a migration problem between 1.0 and 1.1o   Concern that some of the use cases that rely on the use of the license comment field as defined may break (e.g. Auditor use case where the auditor expresses the logic behind a file concluded license in the file license comment property).·         Agreement on the call that a file comment field should be added for 1.1·         Discussed a related proposal to add a comment property to the extracted license info classo   Discussed the use case and implementation issues as described in D.M.’s emailo   Discussed and agreed that a File comment would not be sufficiento   Agreed in principle to add a comment field to extracted license info for 1.1 to solve the use case§  Information on the proposal (including a new bug) will be sent to the mailing list and we will close on the proposal next week Use Cases·         Discussed and documented the use cases for the 2 proposals (file comment and extracted license text comment·         Discussed the NDA use case – some complexity in implementation·         Agreed that many of the use cases need to be fleshed out more (especially the new ones added from the SPDX forum)·         Discussed the next steps and how do we get from documenting use cases to deciding on the model·         Agreed we need to somehow group the use caseso   Gary to send a proposed process on how to approach grouping use cases over the phone·         Discussed if we should prioritize the use caseso   Concern that prioritizing may eliminate use cases which are less important but require less efforto   Proposal to use an approach that considered priority and effort (e.g. something similar to Pareto)o   Proposal to use the effort applied to the use case as a mechanism to prioritize§  Use cases which are not detailed out may indicate lack of interest by participants in the effort thereby indicating lower priority§  Concern that new members may be disadvantaged by this approach·         Agreed we would mark use cases as to whether they are sufficiently specified

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:11, 6 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~<p><span style~~=~~"font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">Minutes 4/10/2012</span></p><p><span style~~=~~"font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">~~Attendees~~:</span></p><ul><li><span style~~=~~"font-size: medium;">·</span>         <span style~~=~~"font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">~~Gary O’Neall~~</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">·</span>         <span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">~~Bill Schineller~~</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">·</span>         <span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">~~Kirsten Newcomer~~</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">·</span>         <span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">~~Kate Stewart~~</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">·</span>         <span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">~~Jack Manbeck~~</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">·</span>         <span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">~~Ed Warnicke~~</span></li></ul><p><span style~~=~~"font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">~~Agenda~~:</span></p><ol><li><span style~~=~~"font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">1.</span>       <span style~~=~~"font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">~~overview Linux Collab meetings and SPDX summit.~~</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">2.</span>       <span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">~~1.1 new optional field proposal: File Comments</span></span></li></ol><p><a href="https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1017"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1017</span></a></p><ol><li><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;">3.</span>       <span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">2.0 Use Case - status of fill in, owners for remaining?~~</span></span></li></ol><p>~~Overview Linux collab Meeting: All attendees on the call participated in the face 2 face meeting~~</p><p> </p><p>~~File comments proposal ~~(<a href~~=~~"https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id~~=~~1017"><span style="font-family: Consolas; font-size: medium;">~~https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1017~~</span></a><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Consolas;">)</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Consolas; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><ul><li>~~Proposal was reviewed~~</li><li>~~Added detail to the proposal that a property rdfs:comment would be added to file~~</li><li>~~Specific us cases discussed (captured in the use case wiki – “tribal knowledge” relating to a file and file origin information~~</li><li>~~Concern raised that the comment may better be served by other extension mechanisms~~<ul><li>~~Agreed that a possibly more proper extension mechanism is a topic for 2.0 and not 1.1~~</li></ul></li><li>~~Proposal to generalize the definition of the current file license comment~~<ul><li>~~Concern this may cause a migration problem between 1.0 and 1.1~~</li><li>~~Concern that some of the use cases that rely on the use of the license comment field as defined may break (e.g. Auditor use case where the auditor expresses the logic behind a file concluded license in the file license comment property).~~</li></ul></li><li>~~Agreement on the call that a file comment field should be added for 1.1~~</li><li>~~Discussed a related proposal to add a comment property to the extracted license info class~~<ul><li>~~Discussed the use case and implementation issues as described in D.M.’s email~~</li><li>~~Discussed and agreed that a File comment would not be sufficient~~</li><li>~~Agreed in principle to add a comment field to extracted license info for 1.1 to solve the use case~~<ul><li>~~Information on the proposal (including a new bug) will be sent to the mailing list and we will close on the proposal next week~~</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul><p> </p><p>~~Use Cases~~</p><ul><li>~~Discussed and documented the use cases for the 2 proposals (file comment and extracted license text comment~~</li><li>~~Discussed the NDA use case – some complexity in implementation~~</li><li>~~Agreed that many of the use cases need to be fleshed out more (especially the new ones added from the SPDX forum)~~</li><li>~~Discussed the next steps and how do we get from documenting use cases to deciding on the model~~</li><li>~~Agreed we need to somehow group the use cases~~<ul><li>~~Gary to send a proposed process on how to approach grouping use cases over the phone~~</li></ul></li><li>~~Discussed if we should prioritize the use cases~~<ul><li>~~Concern that prioritizing may eliminate use cases which are less important but require less effort~~</li><li>~~Proposal to use an approach that considered priority and effort (e.g. something similar to Pareto)~~</li><li>~~Proposal to use the effort applied to the use case as a mechanism to prioritize~~<ul><li>~~Use cases which are not detailed out may indicate lack of interest by participants in the effort thereby indicating lower priority~~</li><li>~~Concern that new members may be disadvantaged by this approach~~</li></ul></li></ul></li><li>~~Agreed we would mark use cases as to whether they are sufficiently specified~~</li></ul>~~	+	== Attendees ==
		+
		+	* Gary O’Neall
		+	* Bill Schineller
		+	* Kirsten Newcomer
		+	* Kate Stewart
		+	* Jack Manbeck
		+	* Ed Warnicke
		+
		+	== Agenda ==
		+
		+	# overview Linux Collab meetings and SPDX summit.
		+	# 1.1 new optional field proposal: File Comments
		+	# 2.0 Use Case - status of fill in, owners for remaining?
		+
		+	== Overview Linux collab Meeting ==
		+
		+	All attendees on the call participated in the face 2 face meeting
		+
		+	== File comments proposal ==
		+
		+	https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1017
		+
		+	* Proposal was reviewed
		+	* Added detail to the proposal that a property rdfs:comment would be added to file
		+	* Specific us cases discussed (captured in the use case wiki – “tribal knowledge” relating to a file and file origin information
		+	* Concern raised that the comment may better be served by other extension mechanisms
		+	** Agreed that a possibly more proper extension mechanism is a topic for 2.0 and not 1.1
		+	* Proposal to generalize the definition of the current file license comment
		+	** Concern this may cause a migration problem between 1.0 and 1.1
		+	** Concern that some of the use cases that rely on the use of the license comment field as defined may break (e.g. Auditor use case where the auditor expresses the logic behind a file concluded license in the file license comment property).
		+	* Agreement on the call that a file comment field should be added for 1.1
		+	* Discussed a related proposal to add a comment property to the extracted license info class
		+	** Discussed the use case and implementation issues as described in D.M.’s email
		+	** Discussed and agreed that a File comment would not be sufficient
		+	** Agreed in principle to add a comment field to extracted license info for 1.1 to solve the use case
		+	*** Information on the proposal (including a new bug) will be sent to the mailing list and we will close on the proposal next week
		+
		+	== Use Cases ==
		+
		+	* Discussed and documented the use cases for the 2 proposals (file comment and extracted license text comment
		+	* Discussed the NDA use case – some complexity in implementation
		+	* Agreed that many of the use cases need to be fleshed out more (especially the new ones added from the SPDX forum)
		+	* Discussed the next steps and how do we get from documenting use cases to deciding on the model
		+	* Agreed we need to somehow group the use cases
		+	** Gary to send a proposed process on how to approach grouping use cases over the phone
		+	* Discussed if we should prioritize the use cases
		+	** Concern that prioritizing may eliminate use cases which are less important but require less effort
		+	** Proposal to use an approach that considered priority and effort (e.g. something similar to Pareto)
		+	** Proposal to use the effort applied to the use case as a mechanism to prioritize
		+	*** Use cases which are not detailed out may indicate lack of interest by participants in the effort thereby indicating lower priority
		+	*** Concern that new members may be disadvantaged by this approach
		+	* Agreed we would mark use cases as to whether they are sufficiently specified
		+
		+	[[Category:Technical\|Minutes]]
		+	[[Category:Minutes]]