[OGSA-AUTHZ] Revised Charter

[Blair Dillaway]

Olle,

I believe we're thinking along the same lines, though your wording is probably better aligned with how things have been done historically in GGF. I'd just like to see a more streamlined process for rechartering for a new in-scope deliverable.

I do agree its important to keep the currently chartered deliverables down to a small size.  The fact there already seem to be 3 specs in progress, plus a need to do a scenarios and requirement document, does raise a concern.

Blair

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olle Mulmo [mailto:mulmo at pdc.kth.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:09 AM
> To: Blair Dillaway
> Cc: Olle Mulmo; David Chadwick; ogsa Authz
> Subject: Re: [OGSA-AUTHZ] Revised Charter
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2006, at 02:27, Blair Dillaway wrote:
>
> > Does this make sense? As should be evident, I'm in favor of
> a broadly
> > scoped AuthZ WG charter that can accommodate multiple deliverables.
> > Are there people who would prefer another approach?
>
> The only downside to that is the risk of spreading the
> workforce too thin, with too many things happening at once.
>
> The approach most commonly used in GGF is to have a narrowly
> scoped charter with one or two deliverables only, crank on
> those documents, then recharter (or die). This resolves the
> group's common sense of urgency of various deliverables up
> front, as you have to pick and choose what to work on for the
> short-term.
>
> For longer-lived groups, such a recharter-recharter-recharter
> strategy is often accompanied by some visionary outlook or
> roadmap though. Trying to be pragmatic and keep things
> simple, I don't see why that vision couldn't be described as
> a "background material"
> section as you suggest.
>
> Bottom line: as long as the group is healthy, produce
> sensible output and stay focused on a few things at a time,
> then the charter doesn't really matter.
>
> /Olle
>
>