Goneall: /* 2.2 */

2018-05-23T02:05:54Z

‎2.2

Goneall: Created page with "May 22, 2018 == Attendees == * Gary O’Neall * Yev Bronshteyn * Kate Stewart * Krys Nuvadga * Thomas Steenbergen ==2.1.1== Thomas still working on the .pdf printing for 2.1...."

2018-05-23T02:04:48Z

Created page with "May 22, 2018 == Attendees == * Gary O’Neall * Yev Bronshteyn * Kate Stewart * Krys Nuvadga * Thomas Steenbergen ==2.1.1== Thomas still working on the .pdf printing for 2.1...."

New page

May 22, 2018
== Attendees ==
* Gary O’Neall
* Yev Bronshteyn
* Kate Stewart
* Krys Nuvadga
* Thomas Steenbergen

==2.1.1==
Thomas still working on the .pdf printing for 2.1.1, getting images inserted is problematic.
==2.2==
* seem to be some desire to keep License references same way treating the other SPDX elements.
* Thomas would find it useful to comment on license-refs, possibly all in license list as well.
* Discussion on how model should change… initial thoughts to keep it restricted to document scope
* However, Thomas brought up example is a license acceptable or not by policies in supply chain.
* Like to move this in spec, that agreement is embedded in SPDX document.
* Yev pointed out that the Scope the license annotation applies to is important here
* Discussed different use cases for licenses
** review (ie. here’s the rest of the license information that wasn’t shown)
** annotations in licenses as it applies to policy
.* Thomas’ use case, not specific to license, policy could be specific to snippets, packages, etc. additional context.
Want to make sure we handle when aggregate multiple SPDX documents into database.
* Scope may indicate how a document license as applies to a specific package. Based on how we’re distributing, which of a dual license applies.
* Scope attribute - is common to both use cases? Likely yes.
* What about modeling licensing policies?
* Maybe introduce LicenseAnnotation? not conflate the two. Semantically distinct.
* Two types of annotation, is document annotation (current annotation) and license annotation.
* In spec, possibly use header titles, but leave fields as is for annotation to clarify Document annotations vs. License annotations
* License annotations should have licenceId and scope.
* Licencse ID can be either license identifier from license list or LicenseRef.
* Scope identifier is SPDX element (document, package, file, snippet).
* AI: Kate create - new issue to be created: 2.2 - targeted issue for license annotation type , connecting, create new section. Work up proposal.
* AI: Gary start an updated model for 2.2
** https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/Model_2_2
==Other Items of Interest==
Kate is working on pulling together evidence to get SPDX to qualify as NIST standard. Anyone wanting to help, please let her know.
==GSoC==
* Krys: concern about getting students more active in community
* Possibly exams still happening is cause of quiet.
* Gary: Propose allocate first 20 minutes for reports from students. Krys Agreed.
* Krys: would like to know that 1:1s are occurring with other mentors/mentees. Other mentors adopt?

[[Category:Technical|Minutes]]
[[Category:Minutes]]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 Thomas still working on the .pdf printing for 2.1.1,  getting images inserted is problematic.
 ==2.2==
 * seem to be some desire to keep License references same way treating the other SPDX elements.
 * Thomas would find it useful to comment on license-refs,  possibly all in license list as well.
@@ Line 33: / Line 35: @@
 * AI: Gary start an updated model for 2.2
 ** https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Technical_Team/Model_2_2
 ==Other Items of Interest==
 Kate is working on pulling together evidence to get SPDX to qualify as NIST standard.  Anyone wanting to help,  please let her know.

Technical Team/Minutes/2018-05-22 - Revision history

Goneall: /* 2.2 */

Goneall: Created page with "May 22, 2018 == Attendees == * Gary O’Neall * Yev Bronshteyn * Kate Stewart * Krys Nuvadga * Thomas Steenbergen ==2.1.1== Thomas still working on the .pdf printing for 2.1...."