OSLC Change Management November 7 2013

OSLC Change Management November 7, 2013

Previous Meeting

Meeting logistics

Included in Meeting agendas and minutes

Agenda

• Recurring agenda items:

  • Community & Implementation updates
  • Specification Issues

• Main agenda items:

  • Discussion: Delegated dialogs for actions
  • Discussion: Change Management Types

• OSLC CM 3.0 Draft Specification

• Assigned scenario owners:

  • IT Operations Linked with Development - VijayAggarwal, SteveSpeicher
  • Mylyn - RobertElves
  • Query For Change Requests matching multiple states - BrianSteele
  • Report problems for application analysis tools - SteveSpeicher
  • Tracking progress of change requests

• Assigned specification owners

  • Attachments - SteveSpeicher, DaveSteinberg
  • Multi state query - BrianSteele
  • State Transitions - SteveSpeicher, SamPadgett
  • Priority / Severity - RobertElves, SteveSpeicher
  • Change Management Types - SteveSpeicher, SamPadgett

Next meeting:

• OSLC Change Management January 16 2014

Minutes

Community Updates: Feedback from teams looking to adopt 3.0: need severity “blocker.”

No spec issues.

Main agenda:

• Delegated dialogs for actions

Sam: Do delegated actions dialogs fit into the RCR scenario? It could be a fallback for when programmatically changing the state fails.

Workgroup agrees it makes sense.

Sam: If we support dialogs, should programmatic (POST) actions be required?

Consensus is “yes” to make things easier on consumers and support scenarios like RCR.

Sam: Should we support prefill like for creation dialogs?

No current scenario needs this.

The postMessage response for successful or failed actions still TBD.

Next steps: Update actions proposal to capture requirements for delegated dialogs and possibly add some examples of what it might look like.

• Change Management Types

Steve: Do we just need the type URIs or do we need to define properties? There are many scenarios where just having the type URI is very valuable.

Consensus is that just defining the URIs is valuable and no scenario requires more than CM common properties.

Next steps: Add the CM type URIs to the 3.0 draft spec.

Attendees: Samuel Padgett, Steve Speicher, Brian Steele

Category:Meetings