OASIS Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) TC

On today's call we talked briefly about erratas and minor editorial changes.  If I understand our current state, we today voted to push wd16 out the door and to start the process of making it our proposed oasis v1.0 spec.  It seems to me that we can deal with these minor edits if we simply follow the oasis process.  Meaning, the TC decides at some point to roll-up a group of edits into a WD, then we start the process of it being a CS and then OASIS Spec (calling it v1.0.1).  Since that process will take a bit of time, it will finish after v1.0 is published.  We can then iterate on this process as many times as we'd like to pick-up additional edits that I'm sure people will find as they read/implement the spec. Can we not follow this process? I don't think we need to wait for v1.0 to be an oasis spec before we start working on a v1.0.1 - we can always put a pre-condition on its being released; that being v1.0 actually makes it out the door.  I've seen other oasis specs have preconditions as they go thru the process. I understand Frank's concern about having an updated spec come out too soon, but given it'll be a v1.0.1 and not a major (or even minor) version number update, I don't think that's an issue. I think getting some of these fixes in would be appreciated by new people reading the spec.  We just need to be judicious in which edits we allow. thanks -Doug ________________________________________________________ STSM  Standards Architect    IBM Software Group (919) 254-6905    IBM 444-6905    dug@us.ibm.com The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.

Based on my understanding of the OASIS process, this is one possible approach.   Thanks, Paul     From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:36 PM To: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [tosca] spec errata   On today's call we talked briefly about erratas and minor editorial changes.  If I understand our current state, we today voted to push wd16 out the door and to start the process of making it our proposed oasis v1.0 spec.  It seems to me that we can deal with these minor edits if we simply follow the oasis process.  Meaning, the TC decides at some point to roll-up a group of edits into a WD, then we start the process of it being a CS and then OASIS Spec (calling it v1.0.1).  Since that process will take a bit of time, it will finish after v1.0 is published.  We can then iterate on this process as many times as we'd like to pick-up additional edits that I'm sure people will find as they read/implement the spec. Can we not follow this process? I don't think we need to wait for v1.0 to be an oasis spec before we start working on a v1.0.1 - we can always put a pre-condition on its being released; that being v1.0 actually makes it out the door.  I've seen other oasis specs have preconditions as they go thru the process. I understand Frank's concern about having an updated spec come out too soon, but given it'll be a v1.0.1 and not a major (or even minor) version number update, I don't think that's an issue. I think getting some of these fixes in would be appreciated by new people reading the spec.  We just need to be judicious in which edits we allow. thanks -Doug ________________________________________________________ STSM  Standards Architect    IBM Software Group (919) 254-6905    IBM 444-6905     dug@us.ibm.com The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.

Hi,   I did some double-checking. If all the changes are non-substantive changes, then Approved Errata can be progressed and approved more quickly than creating another version of the spec, regardless of the version number, e.g., 1.0.1, and it gets bundled with the other documents that are part of the standard. An errata can be published as frequently as once in a 6 month period.   The speed advantages include: * 15 day public review rather than 30 * No special majority votes with electronic ballots needed, just full majority votes     Of course, if the changes are substantive, then we must consider a new version.   In either case, I will insure that this is on the agenda at the earliest relevant moment. That won’t be for awhile. :-)   Thanks, Paul     From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Lipton, Paul C Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:42 PM To: Doug Davis; tosca@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [tosca] spec errata   Based on my understanding of the OASIS process, this is one possible approach.   Thanks, Paul     From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Doug Davis Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:36 PM To: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [tosca] spec errata   On today's call we talked briefly about erratas and minor editorial changes.  If I understand our current state, we today voted to push wd16 out the door and to start the process of making it our proposed oasis v1.0 spec.  It seems to me that we can deal with these minor edits if we simply follow the oasis process.  Meaning, the TC decides at some point to roll-up a group of edits into a WD, then we start the process of it being a CS and then OASIS Spec (calling it v1.0.1).  Since that process will take a bit of time, it will finish after v1.0 is published.  We can then iterate on this process as many times as we'd like to pick-up additional edits that I'm sure people will find as they read/implement the spec. Can we not follow this process? I don't think we need to wait for v1.0 to be an oasis spec before we start working on a v1.0.1 - we can always put a pre-condition on its being released; that being v1.0 actually makes it out the door.  I've seen other oasis specs have preconditions as they go thru the process. I understand Frank's concern about having an updated spec come out too soon, but given it'll be a v1.0.1 and not a major (or even minor) version number update, I don't think that's an issue. I think getting some of these fixes in would be appreciated by new people reading the spec.  We just need to be judicious in which edits we allow. thanks -Doug ________________________________________________________ STSM  Standards Architect    IBM Software Group (919) 254-6905    IBM 444-6905     dug@us.ibm.com The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.

+1 Doug It seems that we should not try to raise every editorial change and leave it to the persons opening the JIRA issue to stop the v1.0 specification track/process if they feel the spec. is broken and needs to be corrected.   In other words, each member can (is empowered to) "hit the big red switch" to stop the production line, but better have what they feel is a compelling reason that cannot wait for an errata or subsequent minor point revision (e.g. v1.0.1) that we can address after v1.0.0 is released.   -Matt From:         Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS To:         tosca@lists.oasis-open.org Date:         04/25/2013 12:41 PM Subject:         [tosca] spec errata Sent by:         <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org> On today's call we talked briefly about erratas and minor editorial changes.  If I understand our current state, we today voted to push wd16 out the door and to start the process of making it our proposed oasis v1.0 spec.  It seems to me that we can deal with these minor edits if we simply follow the oasis process.  Meaning, the TC decides at some point to roll-up a group of edits into a WD, then we start the process of it being a CS and then OASIS Spec (calling it v1.0.1).  Since that process will take a bit of time, it will finish after v1.0 is published.  We can then iterate on this process as many times as we'd like to pick-up additional edits that I'm sure people will find as they read/implement the spec. Can we not follow this process? I don't think we need to wait for v1.0 to be an oasis spec before we start working on a v1.0.1 - we can always put a pre-condition on its being released; that being v1.0 actually makes it out the door.  I've seen other oasis specs have preconditions as they go thru the process. I understand Frank's concern about having an updated spec come out too soon, but given it'll be a v1.0.1 and not a major (or even minor) version number update, I don't think that's an issue. I think getting some of these fixes in would be appreciated by new people reading the spec.  We just need to be judicious in which edits we allow. thanks -Doug ________________________________________________________ STSM  Standards Architect    IBM Software Group (919) 254-6905    IBM 444-6905    dug@us.ibm.com The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.

This sure makes a lot of sense to me.   Best,   --Richard   Richard Probst VP Infrastructure Architecture SAP +1.650.320.3250 richard.probst@sap.com     From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:36 AM To: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [tosca] spec errata   On today's call we talked briefly about erratas and minor editorial changes.  If I understand our current state, we today voted to push wd16 out the door and to start the process of making it our proposed oasis v1.0 spec.  It seems to me that we can deal with these minor edits if we simply follow the oasis process.  Meaning, the TC decides at some point to roll-up a group of edits into a WD, then we start the process of it being a CS and then OASIS Spec (calling it v1.0.1).  Since that process will take a bit of time, it will finish after v1.0 is published.  We can then iterate on this process as many times as we'd like to pick-up additional edits that I'm sure people will find as they read/implement the spec. Can we not follow this process? I don't think we need to wait for v1.0 to be an oasis spec before we start working on a v1.0.1 - we can always put a pre-condition on its being released; that being v1.0 actually makes it out the door.  I've seen other oasis specs have preconditions as they go thru the process. I understand Frank's concern about having an updated spec come out too soon, but given it'll be a v1.0.1 and not a major (or even minor) version number update, I don't think that's an issue. I think getting some of these fixes in would be appreciated by new people reading the spec.  We just need to be judicious in which edits we allow. thanks -Doug ________________________________________________________ STSM  Standards Architect    IBM Software Group (919) 254-6905    IBM 444-6905     dug@us.ibm.com The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.

+1 Doug   From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Probst, Richard Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:44 PM To: Doug Davis; tosca@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [tosca] spec errata   This sure makes a lot of sense to me.   Best,   --Richard   Richard Probst VP Infrastructure Architecture SAP +1.650.320.3250 richard.probst@sap.com     From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Doug Davis Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:36 AM To: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [tosca] spec errata   On today's call we talked briefly about erratas and minor editorial changes.  If I understand our current state, we today voted to push wd16 out the door and to start the process of making it our proposed oasis v1.0 spec.  It seems to me that we can deal with these minor edits if we simply follow the oasis process.  Meaning, the TC decides at some point to roll-up a group of edits into a WD, then we start the process of it being a CS and then OASIS Spec (calling it v1.0.1).  Since that process will take a bit of time, it will finish after v1.0 is published.  We can then iterate on this process as many times as we'd like to pick-up additional edits that I'm sure people will find as they read/implement the spec. Can we not follow this process? I don't think we need to wait for v1.0 to be an oasis spec before we start working on a v1.0.1 - we can always put a pre-condition on its being released; that being v1.0 actually makes it out the door.  I've seen other oasis specs have preconditions as they go thru the process. I understand Frank's concern about having an updated spec come out too soon, but given it'll be a v1.0.1 and not a major (or even minor) version number update, I don't think that's an issue. I think getting some of these fixes in would be appreciated by new people reading the spec.  We just need to be judicious in which edits we allow. thanks -Doug ________________________________________________________ STSM  Standards Architect    IBM Software Group (919) 254-6905    IBM 444-6905     dug@us.ibm.com The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.

+1 Regards, Gerd IBM Distinguished Engineer Chief Architect Cloud Computing, Cloud & Smarter Infrastructure CTO Office Member IBM Academy of Technology Phone 49-7031-16-4997, gbreiter@de.ibm.com IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 From: "Derek Palma" <dpalma@vnomic.com> To: <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org>, Date: 26.04.2013 06:50 Subject: RE: [tosca] spec errata Sent by: <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org> +1 Doug From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Probst, Richard Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:44 PM To: Doug Davis; tosca@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [tosca] spec errata This sure makes a lot of sense to me. Best, --Richard Richard Probst VP Infrastructure Architecture SAP +1.650.320.3250 richard.probst@sap.com From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org ] On Behalf Of Doug Davis Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:36 AM To: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [tosca] spec errata On today's call we talked briefly about erratas and minor editorial changes. If I understand our current state, we today voted to push wd16 out the door and to start the process of making it our proposed oasis v1.0 spec. It seems to me that we can deal with these minor edits if we simply follow the oasis process. Meaning, the TC decides at some point to roll-up a group of edits into a WD, then we start the process of it being a CS and then OASIS Spec (calling it v1.0.1). Since that process will take a bit of time, it will finish after v1.0 is published. We can then iterate on this process as many times as we'd like to pick-up additional edits that I'm sure people will find as they read/implement the spec. Can we not follow this process? I don't think we need to wait for v1.0 to be an oasis spec before we start working on a v1.0.1 - we can always put a pre-condition on its being released; that being v1.0 actually makes it out the door. I've seen other oasis specs have preconditions as they go thru the process. I understand Frank's concern about having an updated spec come out too soon, but given it'll be a v1.0.1 and not a major (or even minor) version number update, I don't think that's an issue. I think getting some of these fixes in would be appreciated by new people reading the spec. We just need to be judicious in which edits we allow. thanks -Doug ________________________________________________________ STSM Standards Architect IBM Software Group (919) 254-6905 IBM 444-6905 dug@us.ibm.com The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.