Action item list on wiki (was Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA Teleconference (August 17))

[Hiro Kishimoto]

Hi Ravi,

I am not against your suggestions, I just want to have
doable light-weight process. Maybe Globus consortium's
minutes may give us a hint.

Thanks,
----
Hiro Kishimoto

Subramaniam, Ravi wrote:
> Hi Hiro,
> 
> I agree with you that we need to make sure this is not a lot of work.
> 
Actually I was thinking that this would be recorded in the meeting
minutes and them cut an pasted into a wiki or doc. This also like you
indicate may be an extra effort on part of minutes keepers.
> 
> I wish I could send out an example but the best example of minutes I
have seen here is what Jim Hughes (HP) would keep for the Globus
consortium. He had a neat scheme etc for recordiing AI and resolutions
and other aspects of a meeting and from what I understood he had adapted
this from some well known method. He would do this almost as a course of
the meeting but in our case we could achieve something similar where we
pause in the meeting to allow the note taker to record resolutions would
help.
> 
> Anyway, I am not suggesting we add more work so unless we can
incorporate it into our current activity we could drop this for now.

> Ravi
> 
> 
> Ravi Subramaniam
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com]
> Sent:	Friday, August 18, 2006 08:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
> To:	Subramaniam, Ravi
> Cc:	Andreas Savva; OGSA-WG ML
> Subject:	Re: Action item list on wiki (was Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA Teleconference (August 17))
> 
> Hi Ravi,
> 
> "Summary resolutions compiled in one location" is very good idea.
> However, I worry about who is in charge. Our note taker(s) is doing
> very good job but I cannot ask him to do additional works.
> 
> As an co-chair, I have started "telecon log" wiki page which
> has recorded discussed topics at each call instead of proposed
> agenda. Thus you can easily locate related minutes.
> 
> https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1482?nav=1
> 
> Actually we need volunteers to maintain suggested resolution summary
> pages.
> 
> Thanks,
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
> 
> Subramaniam, Ravi wrote:
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> I think intent and means are clashing in our discussion. I feel that
> we need to capture decisions and consensus that we reached at meetings.
> The items are spread into minutes (though not always recorded as a
> resolution) and other discussions including email.
>> I think these also have two levels like action items. One level is
> recording the essence in a few lines (whether the topic is on of the
> domains or procedural like format
> 
> ting) like we do with AIs and the other
> is an elaboration where necessary or possible like a document or in case
> of an AI the work product of that item. It is very likely that a
> collection of resolution/decisions/observations would lead to a single
> document elaboration and a resolution may not have any other
> elaboration. Maybe the disconnect is that I think you are referring to
> the latter level and I am indicating the need for the former level. (I
> think both levels are important and have their value propositions)
>> Having the 'summary resolutions' compiled in one location (organised
> by domain if necessary) allows us to see where we have conflicts and, if
> as new members join or in course of discussion, we are revisiting
> earlier resolutions (we may change resolutions but we know that we are
> changing a previous one and not reinventing). Where we need more clarity
> on the earlier resolution we may refer to the 'Architectural notes' or
> other such related document.
>> My experiential perception is that we have revisted a topic many
>> times
> and have reached the same conclusions. This is subjective (and I may be
> able to dig up a couple of recent examples).
>> My one cent!
>>
>> Ravi >
>>
>> Ravi Subramaniam
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>> From: 	Andreas Savva [mailto:andreas.savva at jp.fujitsu.com]
>> Sent:	Friday, August 18, 2006 01:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> To:	Subramaniam, Ravi
>> Cc:	Hiro Kishimoto; OGSA-WG ML
>> Subject:	Re: Action item list on wiki (was Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA Teleconference (August 17))
>>
>> Ravi,
>>
>> I still feel that what you are asking is too fine-grain and would not
>> work in the long run. What is really needed is to document what the
>> approach is on important topics.
>>
>> Taking the 'font' example below it would not be very useful on a general
>> list of resolutions if that list also included stuff on information
>> modeling, execution management, data access, security, etc. Instead if
>> someone thinks a topic is important and they want to maintain a short
>> (or long) document explaining what the group consensus is, and *keep it
>> up-to-date* I would be all for it.
>>
>> I'll just point out that I did set up an "Architecture Notes" forum some
>> time back and we still only have one note there. But it's a very good
>> note and I later used it to write up one subsection in OGSA 1.5.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> Subramaniam, Ravi wrote:
>>> Thanks. I am ok with Andreas' rationale too. 
>>>
>>> Just a quick clarification though: The "resolution" I was referring to
>>> was not the resolution of the action item but noting any resolutions
>>> that were made/taken in the meeting, for example, if we decided that
>>> "All documents will be in 12 point font". It would be good to record
>>> such resolutions taken (or maybe there is a better word than
>>> 'resolution'). These will likely be around for a while and so the 'year'
>>> may be required here :-).
>>>
>>> Ravi
>>>
>>
> 
>