Difference between revisions of "ConCall-20070807"
Charliemccay (talk | contribs) |
WoodyBeeler (talk | contribs) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
T3F - Transitional Technical Task Force | T3F - Transitional Technical Task Force | ||
| − | + | Tuesday Aug 7th, 2007 12:00 PM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5) | |
| + | |||
| + | =Attendees= | ||
| + | McCay, Case, Hamill, Beeler, Jaffe, Parker | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Agenda= | ||
| + | ==Interaction Issues from Normative Edition== | ||
| + | Beeler reported that the I&M committee agreed to a strategy for dealing with those interactions for Normative Edition 2007 that required additions to existing Control Act wrappers. This route will be followed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Project Services Committee== | ||
| + | ===Transition from Project Life Cycle Team=== | ||
| + | Two questions were addressed. The first is how should the TSC transition the work of the Project Life Cycle Team into this new committee. Agreed that the TSC should not de-activate the Life Cycle Team, but rather should, in collaboration with that team transition the committee, increasing its responsibilities and participation and adding oversight from the TSC. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Anticipate that the responsibilities will include: life cycle, define process for project prioritization and review (including key role for Steering Divisions), "strong arm" on behalf of PMO, a communication channel for PMO, place to start to resolve issues PMO has with committees, move scope statement review from ARB to PSC or share (depending on desires). | ||
| − | + | Noted further that the TSC will need to do a similar refinement of responsibilities with the ARB. | |
| + | |||
| + | ===PMO Key initiative=== | ||
| + | The PMO has a key initiative with the Board to determine whether: ''Was the criteria/process for triaging and prioritizing project requests developed by active engagement between the PMO Director and the T3F, in place by the Plenary meeting? (yes/no)''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | T3F noted that Dave Hamill has been participating with T3F and has worked closely with life cycle team to address these and ARB review processes, but that the T3F deferred prioritization of projects to the new TSC. Rather than leave it at this, the T3F agreed to address this between now and Atlanta. | ||
| − | + | Dave Hamill, with Jim Case participating from T3F will draft a proposed process that includes the Steering Divisions, Project Services Committee, TSC and ARB. The proposal will include high-level prioritization criteria. | |
| − | + | Agreed top seek a semi-final draft by August 28. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | ==[[Release identifiers and version control strategy]]== | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | = | ||
| − | + | Discussed the notions in the "page" linked above. Agreed that this is an attractive solution given that it appears to be "ok" with ANSI. Needs '''clear''' definitions of the strategy; some recommendations on dealing with existing releases. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | T3F will seek a proposal from Publishing & M&M, with input from ARB and Marketing. Suggest this could be an M&M Hot Topic for Atlanta. Charlie McCay agreed to ask ITS Committee to produce a straw man for discussion in Atlanta. | ||
| − | = | + | ==Next week== |
| − | + | Start up Architecture, also Vocab binding "standard" | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
=[[T3F Agenda item list|Agenda item list (our sand box for future meetings)]]= | =[[T3F Agenda item list|Agenda item list (our sand box for future meetings)]]= | ||
=[[T3F Action item list|Click for T3F Action Item List]]= | =[[T3F Action item list|Click for T3F Action Item List]]= | ||
Latest revision as of 15:23, 14 August 2007
T3F - Transitional Technical Task Force
Tuesday Aug 7th, 2007 12:00 PM (US Eastern Time, GMT -5)
Contents
Attendees
McCay, Case, Hamill, Beeler, Jaffe, Parker
Agenda
Interaction Issues from Normative Edition
Beeler reported that the I&M committee agreed to a strategy for dealing with those interactions for Normative Edition 2007 that required additions to existing Control Act wrappers. This route will be followed.
Project Services Committee
Transition from Project Life Cycle Team
Two questions were addressed. The first is how should the TSC transition the work of the Project Life Cycle Team into this new committee. Agreed that the TSC should not de-activate the Life Cycle Team, but rather should, in collaboration with that team transition the committee, increasing its responsibilities and participation and adding oversight from the TSC.
Anticipate that the responsibilities will include: life cycle, define process for project prioritization and review (including key role for Steering Divisions), "strong arm" on behalf of PMO, a communication channel for PMO, place to start to resolve issues PMO has with committees, move scope statement review from ARB to PSC or share (depending on desires).
Noted further that the TSC will need to do a similar refinement of responsibilities with the ARB.
PMO Key initiative
The PMO has a key initiative with the Board to determine whether: Was the criteria/process for triaging and prioritizing project requests developed by active engagement between the PMO Director and the T3F, in place by the Plenary meeting? (yes/no)'
T3F noted that Dave Hamill has been participating with T3F and has worked closely with life cycle team to address these and ARB review processes, but that the T3F deferred prioritization of projects to the new TSC. Rather than leave it at this, the T3F agreed to address this between now and Atlanta.
Dave Hamill, with Jim Case participating from T3F will draft a proposed process that includes the Steering Divisions, Project Services Committee, TSC and ARB. The proposal will include high-level prioritization criteria.
Agreed top seek a semi-final draft by August 28.
Release identifiers and version control strategy
Discussed the notions in the "page" linked above. Agreed that this is an attractive solution given that it appears to be "ok" with ANSI. Needs clear definitions of the strategy; some recommendations on dealing with existing releases.
T3F will seek a proposal from Publishing & M&M, with input from ARB and Marketing. Suggest this could be an M&M Hot Topic for Atlanta. Charlie McCay agreed to ask ITS Committee to produce a straw man for discussion in Atlanta.
Next week
Start up Architecture, also Vocab binding "standard"
