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

[Andreas Savva]

Ravi,

I think separating intents and means is important. I have no objection
to the intent of what I think you want---building a common view of the
current state of the work.

I don't think that marking statements with resolved/decision or any
similar word in the minutes and copying these over to another doc/wiki
page will magically create this. I don't really doubt that it might have
worked for another group. But OGSA-WG has many parallel topics running
at different speeds, a varied and large membership who attend meetings
or teleconferences with different frequency and are interested at
different levels of detail. I just cannot see how a list of fairly
laconic statements can make anyone any wiser. Maybe this is something
that we should agree to disagree on.

In any case I'd be very supportive of any topic/design team lead who
decides to maintain a page detailing the current state of their work,
what they think they have reached consensus on etc. I do not see this
being done by simply copying portions of the minutes however. It will
take a bit more effort.

For what it's worth I did go through a phase where I was marking minutes
as you mention. From experience, the frequency of revisiting old
discussions did not really change. When people really want to revisit an
old discussion the fact that there are already minutes about it isn't
going to stop them.

Andreas

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
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Andreas Savva
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd