Difference between revisions of "General Meeting/Minutes/2010-09-09"

Revision as of 12:13, 10 September 2010

ADMINISTRATIVE

Agenda

• Attendance - 19
• Approval of minutes - Pending til next meeting
• Outreach and evangelism:
  • Common Messaging/Presentation – PhilO
  • Industry Venues – PhilR
  • Website – PhilO/MartinM
• Rollout- KimW

<h2 style="font-size: 1.5em;">

<h2 style="font-size: 1.5em;"><h2 style="font-size: 1.5em;"><h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;">Common Messaging/Presentation</h3></h2>

PhilO reported that he'd updated the presentation. He's added a slide describing to people why they should participate; he and Kim will update in the context of her OWF presentation.

</h2>

</h2><h2 style="font-size: 1.5em;">

Industry Venues

</h2>

PhilO reviewed process for new participatns

<h2 style="font-size: 1.5em;">

Website

</h2>

PhilO walked through changes implemented to make how to participate more obvious. There are pointers to where to sign up and get on the mailing list from every major tab.

<h2 style="font-size: 1.5em;">

Rollout

</h2>

Kim described the motivations for, approach to and elements of the rollout that will require work. There's a fair amount to be done, but it is now well framed. There will likely be a different thread of meetings on rollout issues (vs. spec completion) starting after a face to face meeting in mid-November. Some of the areas that need work would benefit from skills from outside the current group, so please think about others in your organization that might help.

<h2 style="font-size: 1.5em;"><h2 style="font-size: 1.5em;">

Issue Tracking

</h2><p>We agreed that we should implement an issue tracking system for spec issues. We can use Linux Foundations Bugzilla. Peter Williams agreed to drive and administer with help from Marshall.</p><p> </p></h2>

<h2 style="font-size: 1.5em;">

ACTION ITEMS

</h2>

• PhilO/Martin - Update on participation page where to join (suggestion was to put link in text, not just at top, consider "I want to use the spec, vs. I want to contribute to the spec" in navigation section. DONE
• Kate- Transfer document (.pdf) back to WIKI. IN PROCESS
• PhilO- Update standard presentation with LinuxCon2010 input DONE
• Kate- Clean up the sharing analysis to what is accurate.  IN PROCESS
• Kate- Publish the current version number of the specification in brackets behind reference DONE
• Kim/PhilO- Add and element of 'What's in this for me?" to presentation  DONE
• JeffL (w/Bill/Gary- Update zlib based on new specification  IN PROCESS
• All- Look for new examples to add to site. IN PROCESS
• PhilK- Explore possibility of LF hosting source for SPDX tools.  DONE. 
• Gary- Explore other possible hosting options. DONE. 
• PhilO- Start making minutes available via link. DONE
• BillS- Start up RDF sub-group. Solicite members.  DONE

New

• KimW- Sent rollout slides to mailing list
• RDF Group- Work out syntax for 5.6/5.7
• Bill S- Add Ed W to the RDF group
• Kate- Track and (when Wiki is back up) implement changes described in Spec section below.
• PeterW- Implement issue tracking system.

TECHNICAL

Agenda

• Spec current status and open areas- Kate
• RDF Focus Group update - Bill
• Tools update - Gary
• Issue Tracking

<h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;">License Discussion</h3><h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;">As there has been a lot of discussion of licenses on the mailing list (decoupling from spec, etc.), we decided to have a separate session dedicated to that discussion. Kate will be hosting on Thurs, Sept 16 at 12:00 EDT (one hour later than our normal).</h3><h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;"><h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;">Spec</h3>

No changes have been implemented since the beta release as we are working through some formatting issues getting the .pdf back into Wiki form.

5.6/5.7 We picked up on the discussion from the maillist of adding 5.6/5.7 fields to the file section which would designate the name and URL of the package from which a file is known to come. There was agreement that we should go ahead with this in concept and that the RDF group would work out the syntax.

3.3 To deal with the recursive problem (wanting to include the SPDX file in a package but also wanting it to include a SHA-1 for the package) there has been a proposal to do a checksum of the SHA-1s of all the other files in the package. We got into a discussion of "unique identifier" vs. "validator" and it became clear our nomenclature needs to be cleaned up to indicate that this is a validator and not an identifier. Someone proposed "Package Check Sum" as the name of the field and there was agreement. Kate will clean up the language requested more discussion on the maillist of the technical approach.

Appendices- The RDF group identified the need for an ontology and an XML schema appendix. 

RDF Group

There was a good kickoff meeting last Thursday. Most of the discussion was about approaches and concerns. Participants were confident that they would be making headway shortly. Bill found a collaborative ontology site that will be useful in the development.

<h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;"><p>Tools</p><p>There is an upcoming meeting to discuss in more detail. We resolved that we will utilize the Linux Foundation-hosted GIT instance to house the tools. First project will be Gary's pretty printer (the code of which he believes will be useful for other purposes).</p></h3>

</h3>

 

ATTENDANCE

• Gary O'Neall, Source Auditor
• Daniel Germain, U of Victoria
• Marshall Clow, Qualcomm
• Peter Williams, OpenLogic
• Kim Weins, OpenLogic
• Kate Stewart, Canonical
• Ed Warnicke, Cisco
• Ann Thornton, Freescale
• Alan Stern, Cisco
• Phil Robb, HP
• Tom Incorvia, Micro Focus
• Phil Koltun, Linux Foundation
• Mark Gisi, Wind River
• Jeff Luszcz, Palamida
• Pierre Lapointe, NexB
• Esteban Rockett, Motorola
• Philip Odence, Black Duck Software
• Eric Weidner, OpenLogic
• Dave McLoughlin, OpenLogic