IRC log of ws-cg on 2002-09-03

Present: Jonathan Marsh, Dave Hollander, Eric Miller, David Fallside, Hugo Haas (joined at 1.15pm EDT)

[em]: agenda - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2002Aug/0000.html; scribe - collaborative effort agreed in IRC
[DavidF]: ACTION: Hugo to follow-up on MEP document and most likely open a WSAWG issue about it [2]; recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/23-ws-cg-irc#T17-08-53; ACTION: MC to inform XML CG that WS may have reqs re. processing and call for reqs should include WS WGs [changed owner] [3]; recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/23-ws-cg-irc#T17-09-03; ACTION: MC and JM to continue trying to find venue for f2f, and figure out whether or not to have an overlap day [4]; recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/23-ws-cg-irc#T17-09-08; ACTION: DF to contact Kelvin L and JM to contact Chris Kaler re. potential future liason and to ask them when [7]; recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/23-ws-cg-irc#T17-26-33; ACTION: DF to ask DaveH whether he is willing to take on XML CG co-ord role (in which case we will not ask Jonathan to take over in Sept) [8]; recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/07/23-ws-cg-irc#T17-49-43
[DavidF]: ACTION 1= Hugo to follow-up on MEP document and most likely open a WSAWG issue about it
[Marsh]: ACTION 1= Hugo (or Dave) to follow-up on MEP document and most likely open a WSAWG issue about it
[DavidF]: [email protected]; ACTION 4, closed
[Marsh]: ACTION: JM to ask Kelvin and Chris to attend next time, to report on W3C-OASIS meeting, first WS-Security FTF, and any thoughts on liasons.
[DavidF]: [email protected]; ACTION- 4
[Marsh]: Zakim, P2 is Hugo
[DavidF]: ACTION- 5
[Zakim]: sorry, Marsh, I do not recognize a party named 'P2'
[DavidF]: discussion of agenda item #5 ....
[Marsh]: Dave: There has been a proposal for a choreography charter on the Arch mailing list.; Dave: Arch is responsible for advising on the scope of the work.; Dave: There is a sense of urgency to getting this group up and running, prior to the first draft of the architecture.; Dave: We're having a ftf next week, and will bring the scope question to the floor, and whether the group will recommend to the CG that such a group be chartered.; Dave: From a tech viewpoint, the only real issue is whether choreography is needed, RESTful archs don't need it. And there's a slide into Routing.; Dave: Holder of this opinion will not hold it up.; Dave: Belief that a wide-open charter is best, starting with partitioning the space.; DavidF: Partitioning technology or WGs?; Dave: technology
[em]: DavidF: if i understand you correctly... the suggestion is to provide a open charter and make one of the first deliverables to help define the partion of the work?
[DavidF]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Aug/0054.html; is the URL for the proposed charter, and the beginning of a thread

Note from the scribe: a public version of the proposal is available at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/09/chor-proposal.html.

[Marsh]: Eric: Concerned about open charters in general. Groups can twist charters, makes delivering deliverables on time difficult.
[DavidF]: EM concerned about giving WGs open charters
[Marsh]: Eric: How does this fit into the Architecture?; DavidF: Why would an Arch group give an open charter (implying Arch work) to another WG?; Dave: Strong sense of urgency to make timely response to the choreography work because there's so much out there.
[em]: DavidF: wouldnt it simpley be quicker for the ws-arch to define a task force to identify a choreagraphy architecture?
[DavidF]: DH: no 'cos the appropriate experts not involved
[em]: Dave: No, the Choreography experts are not part of this ws-arch group and the group (or 12? on the call) thought it would be simpler and faster to charter another group
[Marsh]: Eric: How does this relate to WSDL? Implied functional requirements...; Eric: Is this work focussed on WSCI? Bringing it together with other work in the space?
[em]: proposed Choreography Working charter -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Aug/att-0054/01-part
[DavidF]: DF asks group for their opinions re. the proposed open-ended charter ....; JM concerned that it is the wrong appraoch and exists for political reasons; DH agrees (?); DF infers there is a belief in WS Arch that giving a WG some leeway could result in a faster process; DH Notes the proposed charter is no "looser" than was XML Schema; s/Notes/notes/
[HugoH]: JM: It is too early for starting this work. The WSAWG should investigate the choreography area more: it has not enough traction in the industry.; HH: The WSAWG should discuss the scope of the proposed work and see if they agree that such work can be started in parallel with the Architecture work.
[DavidF]: ACTION: DH & MC to report on charter progress from WS ARch f2f mtg
[Zakim]: WS_WSCG()1:00PM has ended
[DavidF]: rrsagent, bye
[RRSAgent]: I see 5 open action items:; ACTION: Hugo (or Dave) to follow-up on MEP document and most likely open a WSAWG issue about it [1]; recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/03-ws-cg-irc#T17-07-20; ACTION: MC to inform XML CG that WS may have reqs re. processing and call for reqs should include WS WGs [changed owner] [3] [2]; recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/03-ws-cg-irc#T17-07-32; ACTION: MC and JM to continue trying to find venue for f2f, and figure out whether or not to have an overlap day [4] [3]; recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/03-ws-cg-irc#T17-07-40; ACTION: JM to ask Kelvin and Chris to attend next time, to report on W3C-OASIS meeting, first WS-Security FTF, and any thoughts on liasons. [6]; recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/03-ws-cg-irc#T17-17-50; ACTION: DH & MC to report on charter progress from WS ARch f2f mtg [7]; recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/09/03-ws-cg-irc#T18-03-44