Hi Eve

Thanks for putting this together - really helpful.  I made a couple of minor comments in the doc; but agree with the bulk of it, including the proposed target timeframe (whilst recognising that 100% ‘happy path’ might not be achievable!)

I think the suggestion on the legal discussion is sensible and practical.  I worry that not everyone will be able to make multiple calls - and I’m not sure we’ll be able to get quorum in a second call (although that may not be needed?).  The legal conversation will no doubt influence some of our work going forward, so it’s important that everyone at least follows and ideally is able to contribute to those discussions.  I’m not sure there is a better solution to that than good minutes and asynchronous collaboration….

Thanks

—&e


—
Sent from Mailbox


On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:

As we enter the UMA post-V1.0 era, gaining implementation experience and even being asked by some parties what they should do/not do in the face of the new issues being raised (“should we wait to start implementing?” No!), I thought it would be a good idea to have a clear, documented process and timeline for handling our issue backlog.

To that end, I put together a proposal, which I’ve reviewed with Maciej and Thomas so far, and which I’d now like to share with you all:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c50top8X6Aqw3CEVeX_SD2THqO508ihs14QwLem0sXI/edit?usp=sharing

As discussed on the last call, there’s interest in putting our “legal” discussion track into a persistent subgroup meeting series, which will leave us free to focus on technical topics for the time being. I think we’ll need to do that to meet the relatively aggressive schedule I’m proposing — please share your thoughts in this thread.

Eve

Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
WG-UMA mailing list
WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma