THE SPDX WIKI IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED TO https://github.com/spdx
General Meeting/Minutes/2010-09-09
ADMINISTRATIVE
Contents
- 1 AgendaAttendance - 19Approval of minutes - Pending til next meetingOutreach and evangelism:Common Messaging/Presentation – PhilOIndustry Venues – PhilRWebsite – PhilO/MartinMRollout- 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>
- 2 <h2 style="font-size: 1.5em;">ACTION ITEMS
- 2.1 TECHNICAL
- 2.2 <h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;">Mock Up</h3>Spot was not in attendance, but we reviewed the mock-up. There was fair agreement that its close to what we are looking for (if not "Spot" on) <h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;"><h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;">Short Form Licenses</h3>Our implicit path had tied a fixed license list of licenses to the spec rev, but JohnE put forth an impassioned argument as to why they should be decoupled: Essentially we'll want the license list to change with more frequency than the spec (months vs. years). A new license can't mean a new spec rev. There was agreement on this point, but and then much discussion about how to manage the license list. There was fair agreement just as there is a "playground" for working on the spec and a release process to the current rev, there should be a similar arrangement for licenses (though decoupled) and certainly there should be legal review. There was not complete agreement about the intended scope of the list, but there was agreement that there needed so be some nomination process and that anyone wishing to add a license must be willing to take on the associated work. BobG is willing to be a contributor. A topic of future discussion is how we will come down on the initial V1.0 list of licenses. These issues in contemplated in the rollout framework that we'll be putting forth. <h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;">RDF</h3>We reviewed the intent of using RDF and BillS described what's been done with DOAP as a model. Essentially, we've chosen RDF as a reasonable balance between the needs of people being able to view and create SPDX docs, and machines to be able to consume and produce the format.There was agreement that there is lots of work to be done in this area: defining the syntax, defining web repository of license info, documenting usage, etc. We decided that we need a sub-team to take this on. BillS will coordinate and PeterW, Gary and Kate will participate, as well as others who are interested. </h3>
- 2.3 ATTENDANCE
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;">- Common Messaging/Presentation – PhilO
- Industry Venues – PhilR
- Website – PhilO/MartinM
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>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;">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
TECHNICAL
Agenda
- Review mock up from Spot Calloway https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SPDX_License_List
- License Short Form Discussion- Kate
- General RDF Discussion
<h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;">Mock Up</h3>Spot was not in attendance, but we reviewed the mock-up. There was fair agreement that its close to what we are looking for (if not "Spot" on)
<h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;"><h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;">Short Form Licenses</h3>Our implicit path had tied a fixed license list of licenses to the spec rev, but JohnE put forth an impassioned argument as to why they should be decoupled: Essentially we'll want the license list to change with more frequency than the spec (months vs. years). A new license can't mean a new spec rev. There was agreement on this point, but and then much discussion about how to manage the license list.
There was fair agreement just as there is a "playground" for working on the spec and a release process to the current rev, there should be a similar arrangement for licenses (though decoupled) and certainly there should be legal review. There was not complete agreement about the intended scope of the list, but there was agreement that there needed so be some nomination process and that anyone wishing to add a license must be willing to take on the associated work. BobG is willing to be a contributor. A topic of future discussion is how we will come down on the initial V1.0 list of licenses. These issues in contemplated in the rollout framework that we'll be putting forth.
<h3 style="font-size: 1.17em;">RDF</h3>We reviewed the intent of using RDF and BillS described what's been done with DOAP as a model. Essentially, we've chosen RDF as a reasonable balance between the needs of people being able to view and create SPDX docs, and machines to be able to consume and produce the format.
There was agreement that there is lots of work to be done in this area: defining the syntax, defining web repository of license info, documenting usage, etc. We decided that we need a sub-team to take this on. BillS will coordinate and PeterW, Gary and Kate will participate, as well as others who are interested.
</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
