[OpenAjaxMarketing] Minutes from today's phone call (2007-11-13)
jferrai at us.ibm.com
Tue Nov 13 11:59:45 PST 2007
Here are the minutes from today's phone call. Thanks to David, Ted and Rick
for their great feedback on the write-up on OpenAjax Conformance.
OpenAjax Alliance Marketing Working Group meeting minutes 2007-11-13
Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai(at)us.ibm.com>
Ted Thibodeau <tthibodeau(at)openlinksw.com>
David Frankel <david.frankel(at)sap.com>
Rick Saletta <RSaletta(at)wavemaker.com>
Next set of white papers
Status report on white paper(s) on JSF and portals
Mobile TF has preliminary outline for Mobile Ajax white
How to roll out OpenAjax Conformance 1.0
Proposed updated web page:
New logo: "OpenAjax 1.0 Conformant"
Proposed rollout: Announce this along with Hub 1.0 press
Web site update? Looking for ideas and suggestions
I'm thinking that it's time to highlight recent news, not
just highlight our list of members
But news and announcements also appear on our blog
Have long promised to add a link to OpenDomain.org
OpenAjax vendor catalog at next year's Ajax conferences?
We now also have OpenAjax.com. What should we do with it?
Topic: New white papers on JSF and portals
Jon: Erwan isn't here, so let's postpone that discussion until when he
David: What is his role? Will he produce a first draft?
Jon: He has volunteered to lead the effort and I expect him to repurpose
some existing ILOG content into an early draft.
David: Should we ask for a particular date when such a draft would be
Jon: Good idea. I will do that.
Topic: New write-up on OpenAjax Conformance
Jon: Does everyone have access to the wiki page?
Jon: I took the existing content from our current Web site that we produced
before and attempted to update it. For example, I changed from future tense
to present tense. Instead of we plan to do the following regarding
conformance, it's about how conformance works today.
Jon: Let's run through the wiki page top to bottom.
David: Grammatical error in first sentence. "an umbrella".
Rick: Will there be multiple categories for conformance?
Jon: For now, we only have conformance requirements for runtime libraries
in the Hub 1.0 spec, but in the future we will have specs that address
other things, like IDEs. So, now, only one category, but in the future,
Section 3: Conformance claims
Jon: Most of the content here is unchanged from our web site, but the first
paragraph is new and talks about how we want vendors to make conformance
Jon: Oops, there is an error. Need to remove "As currently envisioned" from
last paragraph. That's future tense.
Ted: At the end of 2nd sentence in 1st paragraph, should be "conformant"
David: 1st paragraph is about benefits. Maybe move 1st paragraph to end of
section 2 and change title of 3rd section to claims and OpenAjax versions.
Jon: Sounds good.
Rick: Will there be a page where conformance claims are listed?
Jon: Let's cycle back on that issue once we finish going through the
David: Back to last sentence of first paragraph in current section 3. Two
uses of "because". Change 2nd to "due to". Also, changed "gains" to
Ted: Strip out from "there is only... to "conformance".
David: Make it "To be OpenAjax 1.0 Conformance, a product..."
Ted: That's fine.
David: Question about first 2 sections - is it possible to test toolkits?
Section says it is not technically possible.
Jon: We have a comprehensive test suite for implementations of the Hub
itself, but we do not and cannot have a comprehensive test suite for Ajax
libraries that use the Hub. Only a human who understands the requirements
and the nature of a given library could cast judgment on whether the
library is doing the right things to be conformant.
David: So there are things that cannot be tested. You are saying it is not
possible to have a fully automatic conformance test suite and might involve
some human processes.
Jon: But it's not like we have nothing. We have our test cases from our
interoperability events, but those tests are focused on the
interoperability events, not on conformance verification.
David: Yes, they help but they are not comprehensive. So, how about "not
possible to offer a comprehensive, fully automated test suite."
Jon: Sounds good.
Jon: I noticed that "within" should be "with"
David: "claims of" should be "claim"
David: "alleged abuse"
Jon: Regarding reporting bad claims, right now I have reports sent to
public at openajax.org because that's the only list that non-members can post
to. Should we create a new email alias?
Rick: Absolutely. And make it public so the public and media can see it.
Jon: Obvious name would be conformance at openajax.org.
Rick: Redirect to other groups.
David: What about spurious claims? Maybe Steering Committee should look at
Jon: Yes, on process side, Steering Committee would be the appropriate
Ted: It isn't OpenAjax that is making the disputed claim, it is someone
from the industry. Vendors should respond if the public makes comments on
the vendor's products, not OpenAjax Alliance.
Ted: Which brings up the question, do people make claims via email or via a
Jon: Let's discuss at the end of the call.
Jon: The mailing list can have a description that includes what the list is
for and how the process works
Ted: The description can be a CYA. Allow valid comments on conformance to
go though this list, but tell them that general topics about OpenAjax
should go elsewhere.
David: Anyone who of such a list for non-observance claims?
Rick: For JCP, there is no such list, but that's because Sun does the
Ted/Rick: IN our case, community polices
Ted: Don't send to Steering Committtee. just leave on list. Credibility
goes down for the vendor.
Rick: But vendors can make claims against each other. Hopefully, this would
not add much to Steering Committee workload.
Jon: SC only would get involved in most blatant situations where there
might be damage to OpenAjax or our conformance trust brand
Ted: Right no conformance is very easy and easy to discover when there are
wrong claims. Bad things probably will not happen.
Rick: Based on what I have learned at JCP, my expectation is that 1 year or
18 months this might become a purchasing criterion. Which makes it much
Ted: But I don't see OpenAjax turning into something like the Java space.
Rick: I expect it is easy to have a procedure in place before.
Ted: Any examples from open space?
Rick: Some vendors might want to make statements about each other.
Ted: Best thing is to make sure the specs are clear.
Jon: I think we need to cycle with the SC on this topic to get high-level
guidance and then discuss again here to work out details.
Rick: Key question is: If a competitor to us makes bad statements, is it
better to have discussion in public so the media can see it or some other
Section 7: Future
Jon: I see a couple of typos.
David: Will there be one set of conformance criteria in the future or
separate ones for type of product? Right now it looks like we are simply
piling on requirements.
Jon: I was expecting different categories of products with different sets
David: Might want to consider a sentence that explains that.
Jon: I agree.
Section 8: logos
Jon: Almost out of time. Just checking. We have decided in the past that
there would be conformance logos.
Ted: Good plan.
Rick: I'm in favor.
Jon: OK, out of time. I'll run this past the Steering Committee and within
a month we can cycle back and talk about this again. Thanks, everyone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://openajax.org/pipermail/marketing/attachments/20071113/22e65182/attachment.gif
More information about the marketing