You are here
Calls are Mondays at 15:00 UTC
1. Please join my meeting.
2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.
United States: +1 (213) 493-0618
Australia: +61 2 9091 7606
Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1036
Belgium: +32 (0) 28 08 4345
Canada: +1 (647) 497-9372
Denmark: +45 (0) 69 91 89 24
Finland: +358 (0) 942 41 5788
France: +33 (0) 170 950 586
Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6928
Ireland: +353 (0) 19 030 053
Italy: +39 0 693 38 75 53
Netherlands: +31 (0) 208 080 212
New Zealand: +64 (0) 4 974 7243
Norway: +47 21 04 29 76
Spain: +34 931 81 6713
Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 182
Switzerland: +41 (0) 225 3311 20
United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6777
Access Code: 465-003-005
Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting
Meeting ID: 465-003-005
6 January 2013
16 December 2013
Attendance: Raphael, Anita, Gerry, Larry, Mark (minutes)
2 December 2013
- Does this policy apply to all RDA outputs or just those from WGs or WGS and IGs? I took the broader approach
- Did I get the classifications right?
- Are the criteria for Recs on Data OK? Is Recs on Data an acceptable term? What about individual authorship?
- Can IGs produce formal endorsed Recs on Data or just WGs? Larry says only WGs can produce RoDs. I tend to agree
- What types of recs do we want to make on licenses/waivers for the different products. Are we ready to seek broader input or get legal experts involved?
- How do we ensure the necessary transparency in WG operations?
- The policy should apply broadly and provide a general default IP policy for DDs and other documents.We do not recommend a non-commercial clause. A basic CC-BY license may be most appropriate.
- Individual authors should be used in the citation.
- The RoD criteria need to include versioning.
- We will specify a license/waiver for the RoD in the policy. The specific license/waiver will need more discussion
- Any recomendations for Implementations would be a separate document. The recomendations could suggest appropriate licenses and repositoires (e.g. GitHub)
- IGs can produce RoDs, but the process of meeting the criteria means that most RoDs will come form WGs
To ensure transparency in WG operations. Members should declare
They have no conflicts of interest
They have the rights to contribute what they contribute.
All work of a WG (meeting minutes, discussions, etc.) should be visible to all RDA members.
Suggest that we change the terms of membership to reflect the transparency criteria. The first time a member logs in after the terms have changed they should be asked to reagree. We should include some FAQs addressing the criteria above.
- License/waiver for RoD. Gerry favors there being some control over how the RoD are re-used. Some way to ensure permission is granted for re-publication in modified forms. Perhaps a "share-alike" clause or a GPL style requirment to contribute back. Mark suggests that clear, stated norms under a CCZero framework may be best.
18 November 2013, 15:00 UTC
- Come to a conclusion on what RDA "owns" and what it "endorses" (probably not the right words). RDA owns and maintains formal docs like specifications and data models. It endorses tools, code, APIs etc. that implement what the formal docs specify if the tools are suffciently open.
- Go over the Peter/Herman paper on recommendations for documents.
- Decide if this is the time to bring in legal advice for the documents that are coming together now.
1. Please join my meeting, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:00 AM MST.
11 November 2013, 15:00 UTC
4 November 2013 15:00 UTC
- Membership update. Welcome Gerry Lane. Some WG chairs send their thanks, but noone has volunteered to be on the TF.
- Review of Potential outputs
- Is this sufficient? Did I miss anything critical
- Can we simplify this? Is it possible to boil this down to a small set of documents?
- Does Herman and Peter's proposal work?
- Are there other models we need to consider?
- Next steps for community review and input. When do we involve the lawyers?
- Next telecon
Attendance: Mark, Larry, Raphael, Juan, Beth Gerry
When considering the formal outputs, if RDA is responsible for sustaining and operating things in the long run, it's a much more complex problem. RDA should generaly avoid "owning" things.
We do, however, want to encourage openness, interoperability, and reuse. We also recognize that we want to see technological demonstrations, sharing of code, etc.
[lengthy discussion of license schemes, exceptions, past experiences, and complications that I didn't fully capture]
- We review the outputs coming from DTR and DFT WGs as case studies to see if we can define the RDA criteria based on our existing principles that would maximize reuse of these outputs..
- We present these criteria (and the process) to the membership for feedback
- Refine and revise.
- Bring in legal review
Action: Larry to write up DTR outputs and issues Action: Rapheal to do write upr DFT.
25 October 2013, 8:00 ET/12:00 UTC
- Review and approve "charter"
- Review and agree on two phased approach
- Whether we need to expand membership. If so to whom.
- Approach for determining the outputs
- Determine means for getting member input
- Set up future telecon schedule.
Attendance: Mark, Larry, Raphael, Juan
The team agreed on the general charter and the two phase approach. We generaly agreed that a narrow scope of outputs will make the IP easier.
We agreed we need to be inclusive but keep the group small.
Action: Mark to invite Gerry Lane as an org. member interested in these matters. Mark also to inform WG chairs and say they will have opportunity to weigh in and if anyone wants to actively join the TF.
We will start with a survey of the sort of outputs currently being generated by the WGs and then seek community input.
Action: Mark to start a list and then others to contribute.
Next Telecon: 4 November, 15:00 UTC (note the US goes off Daylight Savings the 3 Nov)
Larry offered "A few thoughts in preparation for the call -
- Transparency - encourage/require transparency in WG members - this is the submarine patent issue
- No organizations last forever. Any output that requires any kind of maintenance requires an exit strategy. Best to avoid. Documents are easy to pass on, operations are not.
- Outputs do not necessarily require an RDA connection. Perfectly acceptable for a WG to produce a lot of discussion and demos and then have five different organizations go off and implement variations thereof with no direct RDA connection other than acknowledgement. DARPA has no ongoing role in managing the Internet but gets tremendous credibility for being its birthplace.
- RDA is not a standards body. Standards bodies are the opposite of agile. RDA wants to be agile.
- Approval process -- any official output will have to go through an approval process, presumably the Council as advised by public discussion, the TAB and, possibly OAB and other WGs/IGs."
The team then discussed the following.
Our central goal is wide spread adoption and reuse, so things should be as open as possible but allowing specific groups more restriction. IP should be as simple as possible. We need to allow flexibility.
Our default position needs to be fiully open with any varience described in the WG case statement. We then need process for change mid-way, but exception needs to require justification and be formally approved.
We want to avoid underhanded practice like submarine patents.
We are thinking that formally, RDA should only produce documents (everything is owned by others). We may want to look to IETF as a model (invite a guest?) they own RFCs (structure) but ideas and code are owned by individuals. We can then have soft policy/advice to encourage openness iby individuals. Maybe include some examples with pros and cons.
Along those lines, Herman Stehouwer (Sect) and Peter Wittenburg proposed a document policy.
Action: All review proposed policy and comment
- 3938 reads