Technical Team/Minutes/2012-03-20

From SPDX Wiki
< Technical Team‎ | Minutes
Revision as of 19:35, 20 March 2012 by Goneall (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Minutes 3/20/2012


·         Gary O’Neall

·         Bill Schineller

·         Kirsten Newcomer

·         Kate Stewart

·         Peter Williams

·         Jack Manbeck

·         Marshall Clow

·         Ed Warnicke

·         Rana Rahal


·         1.1 spec

·         Signing proposals

1.1   Spec


Verification code has not been tested.  A single implementation in the SPDX tools has been provided, but has not been verified.  We have not heard anything back on the Python implementation.


Proposal to move forward as specified.


Kate will review bug DB and update spec.


Peter will update RDF terms, then Gary will update the tools app and compare the doc to the RDF to the tools implementation.


Kate to put draft licensing changes in SPEC and get signoff from legal team


2.0 Specification - Signing proposals:


·         Backwards compatibility requirements

o   Ed asserts that there are mandatory fields in 1.0 that do not make sense in the supply chain scenarios. 

§  Proposal to review these mandatory fields and decide if they make some of these mandatory fields as optional in version 2.0

§  Agree to discuss what is mandatory and what is not in the in person meeting

§  Agree to document use cases

·         Agree that signing is optional

·         Compatibility – inline would probably break existing tools if the document was signed

·         Put to a vote – Most participants expressed the opinion that both would work.  Vote yielded a majority to the detached proposal.  Rana – pass,  Marshall – pass , both should work, Jack – detached,  Gary – detached,  Bill – detached, Kirsten – detached, at that point it was clear that we had trended to detached, so voting stopped.

Plan for the face to face meeting:

·         Wednesday PM session:   discussion of Use Cases & Mandatory field migration from 1.0 to 2.0

·         Thursday AM:  proposal and discussion with wider group on what fields do it make sense to change what is mandatory, and what is not.  Get wider group feedback – before moving forward

·         Thursday PM: Working through Ed's wider 2.0 proposal, incorporating feedback from earlier sessions on mandatory fields vs. not, and whiteboarding against the use cases. 

Pre-work before Face to Face.

·         Create a table of the mandatory fields and properties, and list the use cases that support and those that are contraindicated by them.    Have this work done before we get to face to face meeting.   - Kate put a wiki page framework up.   Others to add use cases against the fields as they think of them.

·         Create a consolidated use cases for 2.0 list.   Bill has transferred work from pad onto this site.   All – please review and add other cases for consideration.