Difference between revisions of "COSMOS Resource Modeling Meeting Minutes"

Revision as of 11:00, 10 June 2008

Minutes for Resource Modeling meetings.

Dec 5 2006

• There have been several requests for a SML sample. ACTION: S Jerman to ask SML Group when sample is going to be available. [Done - they will investigate]
• Progress report on Validation, IF inport/export: updates added to Wiki page.
• Next meeting 5th Jan.

Jan 5 2007

Attendees: Mark, Valentina, Steve Discussion:

• Progressing on validator. SML workshop may be delayed which will give more time.
• Need to discuss schedule, interaction with other projects, deliverables at Face2Face. ACTION: Steve to add to agenda.
• Discussed need for more samples.
• Next meeting: 19th Jan

26 October 2007

• Working on documenting interfaces and refining issues related to adopters with different data types
• Working on putting together a demo of our CMDBf extensions

David whiteman.us.ibm.com 14:41, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

29 April 2008

Attendees: Rich Vasconi (IBM), Merri Jensen (SAS), Mark McCraw (SAS), Ali Mehregani (IBM), David Whiteman (IBM)

Discussion:

• Gave brief overview of RM to Merri and Mark, members of the SDD team who are wanting to ramp up on SML
• Started to go through open RM bug list in order to identify high priority items for i11
• Ali and David agreed to split up the investigation and assignment of P1 and P2 defects to determine whether they need a different priority, should be closed, and should be i11 or future.
• When the topic of bug 213635 came up, we discussed how the documentation for SML and other COSMOS areas would be delivered via Eclipse. David explained that the current intent is to provide the whole User Guide and Developer Guide as integrated with Eclipse help. Ali suggested that much of those documents, particularly in the UG, would not make sense in the Eclipse environment, since the actors wanting that information would not be using Eclipse. Rich mentioned that he has the ability to exclude parts of the doc from the Eclipse based online help. David said that it would be tricky to decide what to include and how to package it, and that we should look at how other Eclipse projects handle this. This might need to be revisited at a community call or summit.
• We discussed ideas for restructuring our teams on the project. David suggested that if we were not going to be a toplevel project for 1.0, we can now establish the structure of our "workgroups". He mentioned some ideas he had, most notably breaking up the DC team into two, since there is a significant variance in the scope of that subproject. He also mentioned that part of this activity (or all of it) could be in finding people to lead the subteams that are actively involved in the work on those teams.
• Ali expressed concern that more teams would mean more overhead in the project.

13 May 2008

Attendees: Merri Jensen(SAS), Mark McCraw (SAS), Ali Mehregani (IBM), David Whiteman (IBM)

Discussion:

• No new status to report for RM deliverables, other than what is already on the status wiki page
• David explained to Mary and Mark the current focus of the RM team, which is 1.1 spec compliance and bug fixing
• Mark asked about the Tigerstripe integration, and David pointed out that is future work of interest for building SML resources from graphical templates

20 May 2008

Attendees: Ali (IBM), David (IBM), Mark (SAS), Jason (SAS)

Discussion:

• David suggested SDD meeting should become ME meeting, and that it should precede the community call. Jason to send out new meeting time and subject.
• David suggested possibly should do i11 design review, since we have somewhat gotten out of the practice of reviewing enhancement designs
• Everyone feels comfortable with design process described on the cosmos-dev thread
• Current status is up to date on week 3 build status page

27 May 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Mark (SAS)

Discussion:

• Current status of deliverables
  • No status changes to report on RM items since last week
  • Ali pointed out that on the release plan, the dev cycle for this iteration ends on June 4, and the test cycle is 3 weeks. We all agreed that it makes sense to lengthen the dev cycle and shorten the test cycle, given that this is no longer the final iteration for 1.0 and that i11 has a focus on stability. TODO: David to raise this issue on community call. David and Ali to meanwhile ensure that high priority i11 items are completed, regardless of the end of the dev cycle.
• John Arwe, SML spec lead, has provided us feedback on possible items for improvement in testing & implementation, and that should result in some additional bug reports forthcoming
• Mark asked for areas where he could contribute to RM and get his feet wet. David suggested that he could look at bug 229890 as a good starting point for validation work, and Ali agreed. Several of the other defects are more related to Eclipse APIs, and bug 232078 is just grunt work to refactor the package names for our API guidelines. David mentioned that CA might be looking to get more involved with RM as well, given its synergy with CMDBf and their participation in the SML workgroup. TODO: Mark will look at 229890 this week and possibly others, and will work with David & Ali to better understand the workitems and to get pointers regarding the RM codebase.

3 June 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Mark (SAS)

Discussion:

• Current status of deliverables
• Ali said he would only be able to get to RM defects during the test cycle and would submit them as patches, due to his enhancement deliverables. These will all be marked as At Risk.
• Mark is making progress on 229890.
• David's remaining SML defects are At Risk due to other responsibilities as well.

10 June 2008

Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Mark (SAS), Merri (SAS), Jason (SAS)

Discussion:

• Current status of deliverables