OK, I'm happy with 6 and 7.2. And 8/9. (Which means there's no point meeting this week, as we don't have to go over each of them in detail in the meetings.)
I think 7.1 depends on 5 - we ought to have the scenario written out and determine what is needed in that scenario for matching available actions with previously-observed future action resources. Martin Pain Software Developer - Green Hat Rational Test Virtualization Server, Rational Test Control Panel OASIS Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration - Automation technical committee chair E-mail: [email protected] Find me on: and within IBM on: IBM United Kingdom Limited Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU "Oslc-Automation" <[email protected]> wrote on 30/07/2014 14:12:37: > From: John Arwe <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], > Date: 30/07/2014 14:14 > Subject: Re: [Oslc-Automation] Issues to close/discuss at next > meeting (was: action items from today's meeting all done) > Sent by: "Oslc-Automation" <[email protected]> > > 1-4: fine > 5: suggest you assign Anamitra to do that, since it's really his > scenario and email. > 6: now live, so you're free to approve if this provides enough review time. > 7.1: the type list is correct; read the context, which is about > linkage from inside resource shapes, and I see zero reason to > introduce a new dependency on the automation vocabulary. This does > not conflict with Automation specifying an additional context (off > of Auto Plans) that has different rules, right? > 7.2: messy/promises all live now, ala 6 > 8: or, say that once the notice that the updates are live goes out > either via the mailing list or in a mtg, people have n weeks > (strawman: n=2) to object and propose an alternative, or the issue > will be considered closed. "closing" an issue doesn't really have > super-special significance, given that anyone is free at any time to > say "hey, that's wrong!" via a new issue. > 9: I suggest 8 instead; add that as the policy stmt on the page if > you like; it wasn't an accident that I failed to replicate all the > grand complexity of the states used by other WGs; I just recognized > that in practical terms the ones I left out are "never" used so I KISSed it. > wrt this week vs this week for next meeting: > - tomorrow, I have a first half conflict, *but* I also raised and/or > fixed many of the issues in question so I wouldn't really have > anything add unless there are questions. my "votes" are above anyway. > - next week, my calendar says I'm out. I suspect that matches my > flights, but it's conceivable but unlikely that there's a mismatch > and I could attend. > Best Regards, John > > Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages > Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Automation mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
