[ogsa-rss-bof] Charter BoF report

[Hiro Kishimoto]

Thanks Mathias,

I've re-read your draft charter and want to ask you one more twist.

 >> (1) service description document
 >> I prefer something like.
 >>
 >> "OGSA-RSS WG will provide and have a joint review of a service
 >> description."

Actually this sentence means that OGSA-WG will have joint review only
on service description but don't on CGS/ESP interface and protocol
specifications. I think this is wrong.

May I propose one more time;

"we will provide and have a joint review of a service description (as an 
informational document) and of CGS & ESP recommendation specifications.

Sorry for nits picking, but we are almost there.
----
Hiro Kishimoto

Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> 
> Thanks for your feedback, I think you're right. I attached the
> (hopefully) final charter. Since I would like to submit the charter to
> our area directors, I would like to ask all people in OGSA-RSS to have a
> look. I will submit the charter on friday.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mathias
> 
> 
> Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
> 
>>  > I agree, "affiliated groups" fits better. Maybe Hiro can also state
>>  > his oppinion.
>>
>> Since all WG/RG stand on an equal footing, I prefer and am using "fellow
>> WG."
>>
>> In addition to this, I have two minor comments on proposed charter.
>>
>> (1) service description document
>> "OGSA-RSS WG will provide it to OGSA-WG" sounds like one-way
>> conversation. I prefer something like.
>>
>> "OGSA-RSS WG will provide and have a joint review of a service
>> description."
>>
>> (2) The latest 7 question has an OGSA-WG relation query as a part of
>> Question 4.
>>
>> I've updated Question 4. However, since your answer has already covered
>> this issue, no modification is necessary.
>>
>> My edits is in attached document, please have a look.
> 
> 
>