Hi Yves,
Thanks so much for taking notes. If we hear no requests for edits from the TC, I will post these in kavi.
Thanks,
Bryan
ps. Sometimes I'm conflicted between spending so much of the TC's conference time setting up "procedures" vs. doing actual work. I think we're all eager to make some progress (i.e., solve XLIFF 2.0 issues and fix/add features). But I think there is value in setting the foundation with a sturdy plan - so the progress *sticks*. Please always feel free to give me advise on striking the balance, if you have ideas. It's like all those years I coached hockey teams. It took me a while to learn how much time to spend teaching the players the drills, vs. getting them on the ice and doing the drills.
________________________________________
From: Yves Savourel []
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:04 AM
To: Schnabel, Bryan S
Cc:
Subject: Draft Minutes for XLIFF TC
Hi Bryan,
Here are the minutes. Feel free to edit.
(I've CCed the group in case they spot mistakes).
=============================================
1) --- Roll call:
Yves, Bryan, David, Asgeir, Magnus, Christian, +Lucia.
2) --- Asgeir move to accept minute, Yves second.
No objections.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200904/msg00023.html
3) --- Review Common Requirements for elements between TMX and XLIFF
Come to consensus on the requirements, then assign owners to propose wording for the spec
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/OneContentModel/Requirements?action=show&redirect=Requirements
A. Report on the TMX meeting attended by XLIFF TC invitees B. Christians proposal for next steps
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200904/msg00017.html)
C. Adding an adjacent item not included in the list on the wiki page: issues around SUB
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200904/msg00005.html)
D. Asgeir's thoughts on XLIFF 2.0 in 3D (Testing the friendship between XLIFF and TMX)
(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200904/msg00016.html)
Christian: Need to have time and space to proceed, or we are losing momentum and opportunities. Need for timelines.
Bryan: Also for work in general (XLIFF 2.0)?
Christian: Personal opinion: just the inline markup.
Email is just examples. Main point is we need timelines.
Bryan: Group good at generating ideas, but less good at finalizing things. So I'm for it.
Yves: +1.
Christian: anyone thing it would be counter-productive?
None voiced.
Are current steps ok, or too generic?
Christian: Yes, high-level milestones would be fine.
Bryan: Feel like we are on step-2 already. So maybe need to have a deadline for that step and a milestone for step-3.
Second week of June for end of Step-2.
Yves, Asgeir: sounds good.
Christian: sounds fine.
Step-3 starting first week of July.
David: need scope defined (3.2) first. Or we won't know if requirements cover the scope.
Bryan: right.
David: 3.2 may need to be more developed.
At what level is the scope? Group? Or source/target?
Bryan: inline affect XLIFF above source/target?
David: Until next meeting for scope (questions).
Bryan: Conclusion of next meeting for closing step-1.
David: For example, all to answer questions listed in scope by next meeting.
Bryan: Wiki as the "source of truth" for our work. Email thread for discussion, wiki for the conclusion.
Is that ok with everyone?
Yves: yes. Asgeir: yes, I can also enter data to the wiki if some prefer.
Asgeir: email for the discussion, then we state the agreed upon conclusion in the wiki. We can use link to the emails.
David: yes. But make sure not all the burden to maintain the wiki falls on Asgeir's shoulder.
Asgeir: yes, for people comfortable with it, and cautious about not overriding other's work. It's a balance to find.
Bryan: make sure also to set comments when committing the changes.
David: Maybe to restrict what changes can be done between the meetings. For example for now, work only on the scope (add answers).
Asgeir: yes, bullet points for answer, and associated name.
If people more comfortable with email use email.
David: important to use email for notifying new info is being set.
Christian: are we discussing general discussion mechanism here? (not just inline content).
Asgeir: yes, a way to collaborate in general. Here applied to the inline content, but we can use this later for the other XLIFF 2.0
parts.
Bryan: yes.
Important to define the scope for example: is text just what in inside source/target or within group?
Summary from Bryan:
- define methodology for working on inline content, and may be useable for other parts of 2.0
- "scope" is the target for next meeting.
- people can edit wiki, email as well. Usually: use email for discussion and wiki for conclusion.
- no adding of requirements until we are done with scope.
4) --- Method to define when XLIFF 2.0 is done.
Tabled for later as Rodolfo is not there.
5) --- XLIFF 2.0 requirements
Not in this meeting.
Bryan: no new business.
Lucia: we can become voting member at the end of second meeting.
Next meeting is third Tuesday of May.
Meeting adjourned.
