Regular SC meeting (3rd Tues) (renewed)

When:  Aug 21, 2012 from 17:00 to 18:00 (UTC)
Associated with  XLIFF Promotion and Liaison SC
Description:

  1.  Please join my meeting.

https://www3.gotomeeting.com/join/421352758
 
2.  Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended.  Or, call in using your telephone.
 
Germany: +49 (0) 898 7806 6465
Ireland: +353 (0) 14 845 982
United States: +1 (909) 259-0010
 
Access Code: 421-352-758
Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting
 
Meeting Password: 54321
Meeting ID: 421-352-758
 
GoToMeeting® 
Online Meetings Made Easy™


==========
Agenda:

1. Clarify attendance on 7th August Approve minutes

Bryan, Yves, Peter, David; Did I miss someone?

2. XLIFF Symposium preparations report, discussion, next steps

3. If time allows. ISO TC37/SC5 liaison progress.

 



==========
Minutes:

 

1. Clarify attendance on 7th August Approve minutes
Bryan, Yves, Peter, David; Did I miss someone?
[no objections]
2. XLIFF Symposium preparations report, discussion, next steps
3. If time allows. ISO TC37/SC5 liaison progress.
[Time did not allow]
________________________________________
[some of the discussed and minuted details were confidential at the time of meeting but are no longer at the time of posting these minutes..]
 
David: Lucia is back to the TC and the subcommittee.
David shows the EasyChair System, how it works, how to submit a review, etc. 
David will follow up with some reviewers; Lucia will follow up with Jesús.
Peter: I have seen the papers and there should not be much discussion.
David: I agree.
Three submissions by Microsoft.
One of the submissions is about the Multilingual App Toolkit and how they use XLIFF on it.
Another one by Kevin and Uwe, where they talk about how localisation interoperability is done at Ms.
The third one is about XLIFF in SharePoint, it is a case study. This is a highlight, it can even be the keynote.
Klemens´s  paper, bringing procedural knowledge in XLIFF, it gives some ideas on how to improve that aspect.
Frank Miller, proposed speaking about XLIFF being the translation format for DITA. It is intended as demo.
Bryan Schnabel, proposed a demo, with a presentation.
Proposal by the LRC team. Asanka has a corpus of XLIFF files. It is intended as an academic paper, but also a proposal for the TC.
Yves Savourel, he proposed about the work of the Inline subcommittee.
Helena Chapman, she can only come for the second day, For the federated event.
The two panel discussions made by David are:
How to put a calendar on it? 
XLIFF 2.0 Feature Owners´ Forum. This can give an overview on how features are in making.
This has been an overview of the proposals that we received.
 
Bryan-One of the questions I made for Rodolfo when we had a one-to-one meeting. Was that having all the features approved made the specification to be ready. And he said yes. In order words, do we have worked enough?
David: I agree with you. Even if all the features are not ready they can be added in modules later on.
Peter: Wouldn’t it be worth to talk what is missing in the conference? To whom should we ask?
David: I asked last time about it. I posted on the webpage that the submission is closed, but I left the option open for people to send proposal.
Peter: what about somebody from OASIS?  It would be interesting to have somebody with a high range knowledge of standards.
 
David: any questions?
Bryan: logistics for the face-to-face meeting.
David: Logistics for the face-to-face: I am in contact with the Ms people. It looks like we can have space in the Ms campus. The good side is that it will be free, but the bad side is that we will have to arrange our own transportation.
 
David: Microsoft will be the platinum sponsors of the XLIFF Symposium. Hashtags for the events: #FEISGILTT, #lwseattle, #XLIFF, #MSFT
 
Meeting adjourned.
 


==========
Attendance:
Meeting Statistics
Quorum rule 0% of voting members
Achieved quorum yes
Individual Attendance Contributing Members: 5 of 8 (62%)
Voting Members: 4 of 5 (80%) (used for quorum calculation)
Company Attendance Contributing Companies: 4 of 6 (66%)
Voting Companies: 3 of 4 (75%)