Presence and IntComm WG

[Steve Blair <>]

Joe:

  For the most part I agree with Deke.  I don't we should be
completely commercial-off-the-shelf in our focus but I think we
need to maintain a little blood on the edge :-)

  People I spoke with in the past felt consistency was what was
missing from the demos. Once a group experiences the demo I think
they come to expect certain functionality. I think it would be worth
our time to establish a baseline set of features, carry them forward with
each demo while adding gee whiz stuff as it becomes available.

-Steve


Rork, Joseph (J.P.) wrote:

> Correction:  I don't have an 'a' in my last name.
>
> Emergency landing?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy George [mailto:] 
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:57 PM
> To: PIC working group
> Subject: [wg-pic] FMM notes
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>   Sorry for the delay in reporting from the FMM, but I'm just now back
> on my feet after an interesting trip home (first time a flight I was on
> ever made an emergency landing) and a bout with an unnamed virus.
>
>   The trial was missed by at least some folks.  I had encouragement to
> bring it to the spring MM.  I also had one person ask about whether we
> were planning on packaging the code.
>
>   Boy did we miss Ben C. at the wg meeting.  Ben T. passed some draft
> notes to me.  I've melded them with my own scrawl below.  Additions/
> corrections/deletions are welcome.  My sense is that we made a pretty
> good start at a self-evaluation but that there's more to do to figure
> out the actual shape of next step efforts.
>
>   Thanks to all who participated.  Stephen Kingham, Joe Roark, Deke
> Kassabian, Chris Celiberti, Ben T., George Brett, Todd Needham, Bruce
> Mazza, John Stier, Alistair Munro, Rodger Will and Jeremy George.
>
>   Deke opened by pointing out that with the terrific partnerships of HP
> and Columbia we had moved way out onto the bleeding edge.  Maybe, too
> far.  Should we back up to simple presence for the moment and let
> vendors catch up to us?
>
>   If we do that, I asked how we move forward, reporting on the lessons
> we've learned, without losing momentum?
>
>   John S. thought that manual presence with strong security controls
> would be a good start.
>
>   Todd noted that Microsoft would like to engage with us but they need
> to have a clear sense of their time commitment.
>
>   I noted that I felt a major failing of the group to date was in
> discovering how people actually want to communicate?
>
>   Most of the discussion was about UAs.  We came to a substantial
> agreement that we need a stable, fully functioning, cross-platform UA
> (or a series of UAs for each of the major platforms.) We came to a
> substantial agreement early on that we do not want to take on the task
> of developing such a UA ourselves.  So, this would appear to leave us in
> the position of needing to encourage (Deke had an idea here) a vendor,
> or vendors, to help us out.  Minimally, it means our requirements
> document should be up-to-date.
>
>   There was general agreement that publishing, in some sense, was a
> good idea, but no specific proposals were made.
>
>   There was discussion of whether versioning would be helpful.  I don't
> recall a consensus.
>
>   On behalf of a colleague, I asked whether we felt we could package
> PALS as plug 'n play.  The answer was, no.  At least not for some time.
>
>   I think there was substantial consensus that we should bring the
> trials back, but not on what they should look like.
>
>   Again, additions, deletions and corrections are all welcome.  Let's
> pick up on the discussion Thursday.
>
> - Jeremy
>
> --
>
>