Difference between revisions of "FTSD-ConCalls-20090224"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Agenda) |
(→Agenda) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
=== Agenda=== | === Agenda=== | ||
| − | * New Project Templates Work group (Mark Shafarman): Mark will make additional revisions and distribute the document to the FTSD list. | + | |
| − | * To better support the development of the SAEAF and Behavioral Framework we | + | * (20 min) New Project Templates Work group (Mark Shafarman): Mark will make additional revisions and distribute the document to the FTSD list. |
| + | * (20 min) ArB Collaboration: To better support the development of the SAEAF and Behavioral Framework we were asked to identify liaisons for our work group: | ||
**Security: Brend Bloebel/Mike Davis | **Security: Brend Bloebel/Mike Davis | ||
**Implementation/Conformance: | **Implementation/Conformance: | ||
**Modeling and Methodology: Lloyd McKenzie | **Modeling and Methodology: Lloyd McKenzie | ||
| − | + | The concern of the groups is that responsibilities cross SD/ArB boundaries and often SAEAF contradicts decisions made in a specific work group. The HDF has assigned explicit responsibility to work groups for those chapters that fall into their area of responsibility. | |
| − | + | Motion (Jason/Ken) unanimous: Get clarity about which group is responsible for specific sections of the SAEAF (e.g. Conformance) the ArB or WG. | |
| − | + | The SD will produce a candidate list identifying artifacts and responsibilities and submit it to the TSC. | |
* DSTU extension update | * DSTU extension update | ||
| + | '''Questions''' | ||
| + | #If an issue is raised and cannot be resolved in the ArB, how is it resolved? | ||
| + | #How does the SD rep to the ArB work with SD and how does the SD communicate to the ArB via representation? | ||
| + | #We need to identify responsibilities for the WGs in our Steering Division using a RASCI chart? | ||
| + | # A SD peer review that ensures that the SD members are staying behind our comments to the SAEAF. | ||
| + | # SAEAF defined conformance differently than Implementation and Conformance: who is the responsible body for Conformance overall? | ||
[[Foundation_%26_Technology_Meeting_Minutes_and_Agendas|Back to Meetings]] | [[Foundation_%26_Technology_Meeting_Minutes_and_Agendas|Back to Meetings]] | ||
Latest revision as of 17:12, 24 February 2009
FTSD Conference call
Attendees
- Implementable Technology Specifications (ITS)
- Implementation/Conformance
- Jason Rock
- Infrastructure & Messaging (InM)
- RIM-Based Application Architecture (RIMBAA)
- Modeling & Methodology (MnM)
- Ioana Singureanu
- Woody Beeler
- Security
- Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
- Ken Rubin
- Galen Mulrooney
- Templates
- Mark Shafarman
- Vocabulary
- Beverly Knight
Minutes
Feb. 10th 2009
- Approve previous meeting minutes for Conference Call: February 10th 2009- unanimous
- Adopt Agenda - unanimous
Agenda
- (20 min) New Project Templates Work group (Mark Shafarman): Mark will make additional revisions and distribute the document to the FTSD list.
- (20 min) ArB Collaboration: To better support the development of the SAEAF and Behavioral Framework we were asked to identify liaisons for our work group:
- Security: Brend Bloebel/Mike Davis
- Implementation/Conformance:
- Modeling and Methodology: Lloyd McKenzie
The concern of the groups is that responsibilities cross SD/ArB boundaries and often SAEAF contradicts decisions made in a specific work group. The HDF has assigned explicit responsibility to work groups for those chapters that fall into their area of responsibility.
Motion (Jason/Ken) unanimous: Get clarity about which group is responsible for specific sections of the SAEAF (e.g. Conformance) the ArB or WG. The SD will produce a candidate list identifying artifacts and responsibilities and submit it to the TSC.
- DSTU extension update
Questions
- If an issue is raised and cannot be resolved in the ArB, how is it resolved?
- How does the SD rep to the ArB work with SD and how does the SD communicate to the ArB via representation?
- We need to identify responsibilities for the WGs in our Steering Division using a RASCI chart?
- A SD peer review that ensures that the SD members are staying behind our comments to the SAEAF.
- SAEAF defined conformance differently than Implementation and Conformance: who is the responsible body for Conformance overall?
