• • We reviewed the table of RFEs ... for the most part, reviews are on track
• Groningen Update
  • PD gave a summary of the Gronigen meeting plans

• • Team walked thru Roadmaps by Group; WG & IG Roadmaps for 2019A are up to date; progress is mostly on track

• • TD briefed the next 2 topics that were well reveived for discussion. Since we were down to out last 5 minutes, we will add them to the TCG agenda for Groningen

• AOB

• • None noted

• • ACTION-T0819-1: JE - Contact Groningen organizers about moving TCG meeting to Wed evening - NEW

• • • JE sent email this afternoon (8/22) and is waiting for a response (cc'd Mark A/Pat D)

Last edit -> Aug 22 (JE) - added mtg notes/actions in light blue italic

• Mark T., Tim J., Laurent M., Christine B., James D., Carlos R., Marco M., Ada N., Steve G., Baptiste C., Tom D., Pierre L., Raffaele D., Giuliano T., Mark A., Pat D., Janet E.

Agenda/Mtg Notes

• • We reviewed the table of RFEs ... for the most part, reviewes are on track

• • TCG meeting in Groningen - Wed or Thu??

• • • New Action: JE to check with organizers about moving to Wed

• • Team walked thru Roadmaps by Group; WG & IG Roadmaps for 2019A are up to date; task estimates are mostly on track

• • Caproles (from M. Demleitner, P. Dowler lead)
    • PD gave an overview - we deffered further discussion for the Interop
  • TD briefed the next 2 topics that we were well reveived for discussion. Since we were down to out last 5 minutes, we will add them to the TCG agenda for Groningen
    • Status of document process in github
    1. 1. I think the github presence is ready. Apps would like to start using it for our next round of standards updates. Is there a documented process that comes with the repo?
       2. Is it OK to handle some of the discussions on github itself, say through pull request comments or by filing and commenting on issues, or does all discussion still need to happen on the mail list? I would understand if that’s the case, but it may also render less useful some of those built-in github features.
    • Tighter coupling of reference implementations to standards approval
      1. So far, the requirement for reference implementations for standards has been useful, but in the RFC it’s mostly a matter of checking that box.

1. 1. 1. 1. I’m curious how people feel about being more rigorous in accepting those implementations. I’m mainly thinking about having them be reviewed and tested to verify both interoperability and coverage for all the requirements of the standard.

Actions

• NEW
  • ACTION-T0819-1: JE - Contact Groningen organizers about moving TCG meeting to Wed evening - NEW

Last edit -> Aug 22 (JE)

• M. Demleitner, T. Dower, G. Lemson, K. Polsterer, A. Schaaf,

• • Status of document process in github
  1. 1. I think the github presence is ready. Apps would like to start using it for our next round of standards updates. Is there a documented process that comes with the repo?
     2. Is it OK to handle some of the discussions on github itself, say through pull request comments or by filing and commenting on issues, or does all discussion still need to happen on the mail list? I would understand if that’s the case, but it may also render less useful some of those built-in github features.
  • Tighter coupling of reference implementations to standards approval
    1. So far, the requirement for reference implementations for standards has been useful, but in the RFC it’s mostly a matter of checking that box.
    2. I’m curious how people feel about being more rigorous in accepting those implementations. I’m mainly thinking about having them be reviewed and tested to verify both interoperability and coverage for all the requirements of the standard.

• • ACTION-T0219-5: PD/JE - kick off the Architecture doc effort and distribute tasks to team - WORKING
  • ACTION-F0518-4: Laurant - Produce documentation on how the models relate and how to get started with certain use cases. WORKING