Time: 1:00 PM Eastern US (contact MichaelFiedler if you'd like to participate)

The Automation meetings alternate times each meeting to accomodate the global team.

Agenda

* Reoccurring agenda items:

• Recap of previous meeting AutomationMeetings20111110

* Main agenda items:

• • Report to workgroup on artifact discussion (Automation Request/Result vs single AutomationJob? )
  • DavidBrauneis, CharlesRankin, LucasPanjer and MichaelFiedler met to discuss
  • Summary
    • Some existing implementations represent the concepts with 1 artifact, some with 2
    • 2 artifacts provides the most flexibility
    • implementations with only 1 artifact internally can represent the information in that artifact as 2 separate OSLC artifacts, the request and result.
    • keep the request as simple as possible. Minimal info to request an automation:
      • state
      • desired state (for cancel)
      • input parameters required for automation execution
      • link to result (when it becomes available)
      • link to automation plan
      • requester
      • time requested
      • possibly "how requested" (manual, scheduled, programmatically)
    • originally, discussed this being transient. Now recommended persistent. Implementation may expose info available in 1..n places as 2 OSLC artifacts.
• Discuss Agent/Worker sub-scenario.
  • Proposal to limit scenario to optional agent registration
  • Value of a limited scenario
• If there is time, discuss result contributions. See ResourceDefinitions.
• Plans for moving from scenario development to spec development
• Previous Action Items:
  • NA
• Next meetings:
  • Discuss meeting time
  • 1 December

Minutes

Attending: Michael Fiedler, Rich Rakich, Charles Rankin, Vaibhav Srivastava, Pramod Chandoria, Paul McMahan? , Bill Higgins, Petes Steinfeld, Barys Dubauski, Max Vohlken

* Discussion topic 1 was the review of Automation Request and Automation Result as two separate artifacts (vs Automation Job)

• General consensus
• Going forward, we will use these two artifacts in addition to Automation Plan and the as-yet undiscussed contributions

* Second topic splintered off from the first. Centered around whether the notions of composition and step ordering were in scope for V1

• Agreement that the scenarios around composite execution are very important
• Some disagreement around how much is in scope for V1
  • Agreement it is still an open issues
  • Many examples from build domain to illustrate importance of ordering. Simple result contributions may not suffice
  • MaxVohlken feels we may be missing a result container artifact

* Actor registration discussion

• Similar to the second topic above, much of the discussion resolved around scope rather than the specifics of this scenario
• Acknowledgement that the V1 spec needs to fit the in-scope V1 scenarios
• Discussion around need to get initial implementations to find what is missing, what is too much
• PaulMcMahan introduced actor registration as a means for setting an automation system in motion
  • Actor registration as a catalyst
  • Some discussion around whether this is actually the case.
  • TODO: MichaelFiedler, CharlesRankin, PaulMcMahan, MaxVohlken (and any other interested parties - let MichaelFiedler know) will meet to discuss further

* Need to move into spec authoring mode

• We still have scenarios to discuss (result contributions, DevOps? etc)
• In parallel, need to start spec authoring. CharlesRankin has volunteered to help. Others interested, contact MichaelFiedler.
• Need to focus on resources and properties...what is inherited from OslcCore and what is unique to Automation.

* Next meeting: Thursday, 1 December at 10 AM Eastern US time