Participants

(P) = Present, (E) Excused

Chair

@Paul Simons as POAC Community Leader (P)

Elected members (with voting right)

@Ahti Allikas (P)

@Arne Johan Larsen (P)

@Hannu Kivinen (P)

@Simon Foster (P)

@Wim Kok (P)

OO participants

@Erwin Wulterkens (P)

@Hans Petersen (P)

Guests

@GEOK_Seong_Wah@imda.gov.sg (E)

@Philip Helger (E)

Agenda

Concerns were raised about the mail sent out related to
- on behalf of who
- who approved what
- who has to approve what
- to whom the mail was addressed
- Erwin gave answers to the raised concerns
- The CMB members agreed with the given explanation.
Concerns were raised about
- the quality of the documentation
- inconsistencies in the documentation
- inconsistencies in implementation
- inconsistencies between rules and schematron rules
- difficulties in understanding what has changed
- difficulties in finding links between the different layers
- difficulties in finding differences between the different specialisations
Examples were given for each of the above categories
Different options were discussed on how to handle the above concerns.
Erwin explained that the PoAC CMB has authority over the PINT base layer but the PA's have authority over their specialisation.
The PoAC CMB has no authority over the review of the specialisations as such.
Withdrawing the member review is not within the authority of the PoAC CMB.
The PoAC CMB has authority over the publication.
The CMB members agreed that the best way forward is to send in comments about the raised concerns.
OO and the PA's will need to address these before final publication.
The PoAC CMB will at that moment in time have to evaluate if concerns and remarks are sufficiently addressed or not.
As Erwin already mentioned in the beginning of the meeting, the availability of resources will have to be considered as well.

Next meetings