OASIS



OSLC Steering Committee (SC) Meeting 1701 – January 16, 2017

Agenda

Attendees:

• SC Voting Members:

o Andreas Keis [ ], Bill Chown [x], Bola Robiti [ ], Jim Amsden [x], Mark Schulte [ ], Martin Sarabura [x], Mats Berglund [x], Rainer Ersch [x], Wesley Coelho [x]

• SC Staff Members: Nelson Jean [x]

• OASIS Staff: Jane Harnad [ ], Scott McGrath [ ]

• Additional Attendees: Kalena Kelly [x]

|# |Area |Topics |

|1 |General Business |A. Vision/Mission (10 mins) – Martin, Rainer |

| |(50 mins) |Discussion: |

| | |Vision and feedback– |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |FYI: Other URLs: |

| | | |

| | |Topics to consider: |

| | | |

| | |Actions from prior meeting: |

| | |Kalena to publish the vision |

| | |Rainer to announce it to OSLC-MS |

| | | |

| | |Proposed addition to the mission statement to state that OSLC endeavors to have a minimal-coupling methodology |

| | |where it maximizes opportunity for integration. |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |Minutes: |

| | | |

| | |Jim thought this really wasn’t a vision thing since we ought not to limit what others can do. This type of |

| | |message can be announced and discussed in forums, etc. Also noted was that there’s a open- |

| | |discussion on this very subject. |

| | |This should be a discussion item at the Communications Workgroup. |

| | | |

| | |B. OASIS OSLC activities at ICE Conference (15 mins) – All who attended |

| | |Discussion: |

| | |F2F summary |

| | |Observations from those that attended |

| | |Lessons learned |

| | |Follow-up actions if any |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |Minutes: |

| | | |

| | |Better than expected. Lively discussions. |

| | |Reconsider whether we should sponsor drinks or at least look at what value we’ll derive from doing that in the |

| | |future. Should look for more opportunities to get together F2F. |

| | |Keep OSLC BoF talk. |

| | | |

| | |C. Proposal to restructure OSLC communications (20 mins) – Rainer |

| | |Discussion: |

| | |OSLC community / communications and proposal by Axel Reichwein. Rainer’s summary of the proposal: |

| | | |

| | |During the F2F meeting at the ICE conference, the participants identified the need to restructure our |

| | |Communication effort. Now in the 8th year of OSLC and after many changes, some clean-up is necessary and new |

| | |things need to be addressed. For a list of topics, which may not be complete, see below. Most issues are not |

| | |new, but due to the limited resources, we never got to the point to address all of them. |

| | |During the discussion, Axel Reichwein () offered to contribute to the effort and hire a full time |

| | |OSLC community manager/contributor. I had some discussions with him after the conference and we came up with the|

| | |following proposal: |

| | |- The OSLC Communication working group should be the forum to handle these topics |

| | |- A task force team should be created to define the new open- |

| | | This task force should be led by the new hire from koneksys. |

| | |  Other members of the community, especially the communication working group, are welcome to join.  Preferred |

| | |platform is “githup” |

| | |- The implementer forum was seen a very promising instrument which should be implemented as soon as the |

| | |necessary resources are available (e.g. after the revamp of open-) |

| | |- For the other topics, the communication working group should come up with a task description and assign a |

| | |topic owner for it. |

| | |- As defined in the past all the Communication working group activities should be supported by a StC member |

| | |(currently Bill Chown) who reports regularly to the StC.   |

| | |During the StC meeting next week we should discuss this proposal and make a go/no go decision. |

| | | |

| | |Minutes: |

| | | |

| | |Axel is not seeking anything specific in return. His business is very OSLC centric, so his objective is to make |

| | |OSLC more successful so the market can grow. It was agreed that this is a good opportunity to leverage and |

| | |pursue. |

| | |Bill will continue to be the focal point to work with Axel to plan/organize this activity and future |

| | |organization of roles and responsibilities. |

| | |Kalena noted IBM is currently funding open- infrastructure. Bill and Rainer commented that we |

| | |should look to move away from a single funded model to a more independent one. |

| | | |

| | |Actions: |

| | | |

| | |[Rainer] Arrange a meeting with Bill and Axel to communicate intent to move forward. |

| | | |

| | |D. Financials (0 mins) – Mark |

| | |The 2016 budget included $17K in funds and total expenditure at year-end was $5759 ($250 gift card for survey, |

| | |IBM CE/IoT conference: $2250 sponsorship, $3K reception, $259 banner/shipping), with a carry-over from 2015 of |

| | |$27K. |

| | |For 2017, we submitted a spend plan of $17K with carry-over of $27K. OASIS would like to change that to more |

| | |accurately reflect our historical spend (i.e. a lower amount) -- $9K ($5K for event sponsorship and $3K travel).|

| | |If we exceed this amount, expectation is that funds would be available. |

| | | |

| | |Discussion: |

| | | |

| | |Check with OASIS whether we can allocate funds for an on-going resource as outlined in Topic 1C. |

| | | |

|2 |TCs |A. OSLC Core, CCM and CM Specification status (5 mins) – Jim |

| |(20 mins) | |

| | |Discussion: |

| | | |

| | |Core TC was approved a Committee Specification Draft and was available for public review until 9/28. |

| | | |

| | |Status updates and next steps. |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |Minutes: |

| | | |

| | |Jim provided updates on Core, CCM, and CM. No issues needing SC involvement. |

| | |Rainer requested building a tabular view of the status that summarizes the status and outlook for each spec. |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |B. Strategy proposal for accelerating OSLC standards development and adoption (15 mins) – Martin |

| | | |

| | |Short proposal: |

| | | |

| | |The creation of the domains TC has presented an opportunity for us to accelerate our standards development and |

| | |position OSLC so that it can achieve its full potential. At the recent IBM conference I had an opportunity to |

| | |think about how we might reach this goal. I concluded that a significant injection of resources into the TC |

| | |process is needed. We need to move quickly and there are a number of tasks that can be done in parallel. At the |

| | |next StC meeting I would like to explain why we need the extra capacity and present a plan for how to get people|

| | |to step forward. We’ve never tried this approach before but I feel it has good potential for success. |

| | | |

| | |Full proposal: |

| | | |

| | |Recently we have experienced some delays in moving forward on both the core and CCM committees due to various |

| | |reasons. In my opinion, a big contributor to these delays is simply lack of capacity: When something comes up it|

| | |is difficult to spread the work around. True, we could delegate better and I could do a better job delegating. |

| | |However, I think we need a significant injection of new vitality into the process –new people, and a new sense |

| | |of purpose. My proposal attempts to address this need. |

| | |In the past, we’ve gone to vendors and customers and asked them for support. The response has been weak, and |

| | |mostly from vendors. I believe there is a perception that OSLC is “primarily an ALM/PLM thing”. Also, I have |

| | |been getting some feedback that with IOT attracting a lot of energy, some new IOT-related integration |

| | |methodology will rise up and replace OSLC. Our customers have been very clear however: They want OSLC and they |

| | |want it now. Thus my plan is to get additional resources from the people who really want OSLC –that is, the |

| | |customers. |

| | |The problem with asking customers is that 1. They expect the vendors to do it, and 2. They don’t want to be the |

| | |ones who pay for something that everyone else will benefit from. I think that since our progress has been |

| | |slowing recently we can show them that the vendors can’t do it by themselves. Also, to avoid the “free rider” |

| | |effect we can position the request as follows: We approach customer A and ask them if they are willing to donate|

| | |resources if customers B, C and D also donate. Then we approach customer B and ask them if they are willing to |

| | |donate resources if customers A, C and D also donate. And so on down the list. When we feel we have enough |

| | |resources, we get them to all simultaneously step forward. |

| | |The request must be coupled with a strong strategy; one that seems very likely to succeed if we get the needed |

| | |resources. My strategy is to accelerate our progress, position OSLC squarely in the path of IOT, implement an |

| | |easy-to-extend V3 reference implementation building on Jim’s Node.js work and bring out the collateral needed to|

| | |ease adoption. We would need volunteers to help with the new domains TC. This should be reasonably |

| | |straightforward since the customers know the domains quite well. We could need volunteers to help with the |

| | |reference implementation. For this we need technical people who are willing to work on an open-source project. |

| | |This is great experience especially for junior employees. And finally, we need to work on our web site and |

| | |marketing. I believe that Axel Reichwein (Koneksys) would be a great contributor for this effort. |

| | | |

| | |I believe this is a plan that our customers would be willing to support. We’ve already had some discussions at |

| | |the recent conference and the response has been positive. If the StC likes the plan I am willing to author a |

| | |“sales script” and related printed material to allow us to approach customers and make this pitch. |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |Minutes: |

| | | |

| | |This is like a kickstarter / crowd-sourcing campaign, which is great. |

| | |Need to convince people there’s a business case also. |

| | | |

| | |Actions: |

| | | |

| | |[Martin, Wesley] One potential path forward is to start with a focus group: |

| | |Identify targets for focus group discussions. Go in with prepared questions and desired outcomes. Then |

| | |reach-out to select people. |

| | |Sales script is a follow-on item. This can be telling them the benefit of a focus group as well as the bigger |

| | |picture objectives. |

|3 |OSLC Initiatives |A. How can we help drive greater adoption of OSLC |

| |(0 mins) |OSLC integration scenarios and business value. See Topic 4B. |

|4 |WGs / UGs |A. OSLC Communications WG (5 mins) |

| |(15 mins) |Discussion: |

| | |OSLC Communications Scorecard: |

| | |Need to look at past data and determine how frequently to gather it going-forward, and how best to leverage it. |

| | |Need to focus on a way to measure the impacts and effectiveness of certain things that we release, do or convey |

| | |to the public. This is complementary to scorecard metrics, which are helpful to establish trends over time. |

| | |For scorecard to work, need to draw people to the various sites we are monitoring as well as the targeted |

| | |initiatives/campaigns we intend on doing. |

| | |Discussion in August in Communications WG. |

| | |Status update. |

| | | |

| | |FYI: Conference calendar: |

| | |SC wiki Front Page -> Working Documents -> Conferences and Events |

| | |Recommended list of conferences – |

| | | |

| | |OSLC Community Update by StC |

| | |Need to plan for this in 2017 |

| | |FYI: Last year’s update – |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |Minutes: |

| | | |

| | |Kalena requested input from everyone on events to prioritize participation in 2017. |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |B. OSLC Integration Scenarios and Business Value (10 mins) -- Wesley |

| | |Discussion: |

| | |How can we drive adoption? The scenarios will play a key role here. (Reference Vision Executive Summary - |

| | |). What integration scenarios can we posit along with |

| | |OSLC solutions? |

| | |[pic] |

| | |Possibly combine this activity with Martin’s proposal in Topic #2B. |

| | | |

| | |Minutes: |

| | | |

| | |Deferred to next meeting. |

|5 |Other | |

| |(0 mins) | |

|6 |RoundTable | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download