PMC Minutes for 2009-09-23

NEXT WEEK: Discuss the Patent issues around optional features/promotable transations.
FOLLOWING WEEK: Budget vote.

ACTIONS

NEW

• ACTION ALL: Determine if you can vote yes to budget AND if you believe you can secure the money
• ACTION JOH: Vote in 2 weeks; email out a reminder on the Monday.
• ACTION JOH: Reach out to participant
• ACTION AR + AB: Get the help offered to Rob and Rafi (thanks!)
• ACTION JOH: Write intro to Spec Book 1.
• ACTION RG1: Email out the work list to the PMC. Improve visiblity.

OPEN

• ACTION ALL: This about how to get resources to augment RG/RS
• ACTION RG1: AMQP 1.0 Plan vs Actual update
• ACTION JOH: Reach out to the prospect to discuss commitment
• ACTION CT: Reach out to the other prospect to advance to meet + greet + agreement signing
• ACTION JOH: Bring the back to the PMC for voting in 2 weeks (7 October)
• ACTION DI: Drive the detailed specification effort for Promotable Transactions
• ISSUE: How do we clarify the legal issues around patent protection for "optional" issues

CLOSED

• ACTION JOH: Update the budget proposal to incorporate the survey findings PMC04 Budget for 2009 2010
• ACTION ALL: Get in touch with John about any lingering budget issues

Attendees

John O'Hara - JPMorgan
Rob Godfrey - JPMorgan
Allan Beck - JPMorgan
Pranta Das - Cisco
Hanno Klein - DBS
Andreas Moravec - DBS
Colin McNaughton - Progress
Hiram Chirino - Progress
Dave Ingham - Microsoft
Robert Greig - Barclays
Ralf Frankel - Solace
Greg Lawrence - 29 West
Chuck Linton - Tervela
Eric Newcomer - Credit Suisse
Roshan DeMello - Credit Suisse
Mark Blair - Credit Suisse
Keith Owen - Credit Suisse
Alexis Richardson - RabbitMQ
Rafi Schloming - RedHat

Apologies

Matthew Arrott - TWIST
Pieter Hintjens - iMatix
Paul WSO2
Adrian Kunzle - JPMorgan
Carl Trieloff - RedHat
Paul Blanz - Goldman Sachs

Agenda

• Particpation Status update
• Budget Vote Proposal
• 1.0 Plan Presentation
• AOB

Proceedings

Participation Update

One prospect is now in the ready to sign phase. Carl is progressing, will arrange the call when ready to execute.

Budget Vote Proposal

JOH walked through the proposal at PMC04 Budget for 2009 2010.
CT: Defer for 2 weeks to enable people to get authorisation to spend.
PD + MB: Seconded.
JOH: Carried.
MB: Does voting yes imply both the desire to have the budget AND the ability to contribute.
JOH: Yes, one should only vote Yes if they BOTH agree with the resolution AND believe they have the ability to contribute at the suggested rate.

1.0 Plan Presentation

RG2: went over the plan for 1.0.
Work has been clasified as small/medium/large.
Current work is completing the data types section; recent DTX work has also caused some rethinking.
Keen to move to prototype work and fix up errata in document - 6 weeks work ending in mid November.
RG2: Do the estimates account for the effort that RG1 and RS can contribute
RG1: Yes, it does.
AR: How was the sizing done? Can you re-iterate the plan numbers?
RG1: By end of week all items in Books 2 (Logical Model) and 3 (Data Types) will be resolved; then we will move onto 4 and the prototype. Prototype and document should both be done by mid-November.
AR: Would additional helpers slow down or speed up the prototype work?
RG1: Help would be welcome and speed us up. 10% effort might slow us down, bursts would speed us up.
AR: Tony may be available for a burst of effort...with some notice.
RG1: Excellent.
RG1: Will be in Python and on GitHub and licensed very freely.
AR: Could we get some on of Matthew's team or the Twisted chaps.
RG1: Blasting through docs at the moment, preparing for review by PMC.
RG1: JOH could help with the intro.
ACTION: JOH Write intro to doc - catch up with RG1 on detail.
AB: After you've completed the prototype; what are the next steps to ratify.
RG1: Input from others; vote good enough then move to committee draft awaiting 2 implementations.

MB: Will we be verifying the mapping to JMS?
RG1: Depends how much time I have; but intent is to do that for 1.0 and write the mapping document for JMS.
AR: WCF shouldn't be a problem but JMS might be.
RG1: Constantly on our mind given implementation experiences. We believe 1.0 is better for implementing JMS on top of it.
AR: Do we need to pass the JMS TCK with 1.0; we did not mandate that; which was a good idea.
JOH: Agreed.
CT: Needs to be possible for a 1.0 broker to pass the TCK, but not manadatory.
RG1: Main thing is that the JMS mapping to 1.0 is tbe same between brokers for interop.
MB: Agreed.
AR: Some concerns about doing "insane things" to pass JMS TCK.
RG1: Aim to make the protocol as simple as possible; but doesn't go against JMS/WCF.
AR: Agree this is the right approach.
RG1: Mapping document alone not sufficuent to pass TCK; but makes it possible.
RG2: Must be possible to comply with AMQP1.0 and pass JMS TCK simultaneously.
MB: Agreed.
RG2: Important to make the market perception correct.

Some more detailed discussion here.

AB: Will offer PM

AOB

None.

Meeting Ends 1h