[scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter [was: Revised press release draft and charter document draft]

[Dave Sidor]

Bert et al,

I can agree with most of Bert's proposals but suggest an alternative for
his first proposal. Instead I propose to revise the first paragraph to
be consistent with the press release's first paragraph. Possible
revision involves the removal of the SDO names from the first paragraph
and the addition of a new second paragraph with the SDO names taken from
the press release:

"Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) have been
carrying on a dialogue for about one year to try to improve overall 
collaboration on next generation standards for web service based
management of networked and individual resources. As a result of this
discussion these SDOs have motivated the  formation of  a
cross-institutional technical working group which will produce
informational document with the primary objective of converging common
terminology and organizing and summarizing the interplay of the various
technology and specifications, an a taxonomy. This activity is called
"Standards development organizations Collaboration on networked
Resources Management" or SCRM (can be pronounced scrum).

Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style
collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), the
Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of
Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking
Industry Association (SNIA), the Tele Management Forum (TMF), and the
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).  Other standards development
organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and
the International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
Standardization Sector (ITU-T) have expressed interest in participating
in this activity."

Dave











"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> 
> In the WG charter I see:
> 
>   Focus/Purpose
>     Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs),
>     including DMTF, GGF, IETF, ITU-T, OASIS, SNIA, TMF, W3C
>     have been carrying on a dialogue for about one year to
>     try to improve overall  collaboration on next generation
>     standards for web service based management of networked
>     and individual resources.
> 
> WOuld anyone have a problem to change the first few words from
>     Several major Standards...
> into
>     Several people/individuals from major Standards...
> I know that some of you speak "for their organization".
> But I do not, I rather speak as an individual who happens to
> also be AD for the IETF OPS and Management area.
> I believe such is true for some others as well.
> 
> I would also prefer reqording of the last para on page 1:
>     While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not
>     mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just
>     provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All
>     participating SDOs can equally contribute to and promote
>     the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular public WG in GGF
>     and anyone with relevant technical skills, interest and
>     commitment can participate
> I would rather see something aka (again acknowledging that some
> of us do not officially repersent our organisations):
>     While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not
>     mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just
>     provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All
>     participating (people from) SDOs can equally contribute
>     to and promote the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular
>     public WG in GGF and anyone with relevant technical skills,
>     interest and commitment can participate
> 
> During teh call, I also suggested (and still believe such would
> be a good idea) to change:
>     Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0,
>                                October 2005.
>     Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for
>                                public review, January, 2006.
>     Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0,
>                                April, 2006.
> into something that more explicitly calls out review in each of
> the organizations that are listed. So how about:
>     Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0,
>                                October 2005.
>                            1a: Review in each organization and
>                                collect comments, November 2005
>     Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for
>                                public review, January, 2006.
>                            2a: In paralelle review in each org
>                                and collect comments or OK
>     Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0,
>                                April, 2006.
> If there are still comments from 2a, then a step 3a might be needed
> to have the final review/ok from each organization.
> 
> Similar additional steps for 2nd deliverable would be good.
> 
> I am actually surprised that we do the "glossary" after the landscape
> document. Seems to me we would do betetr to ensure we use agreed
> upon terminology in our landscape document, so maybe we should
> speed up the process of the glossary document.
> 
> I am very concerned with having "Teleconferences every 2 weeks".
> I do not find teleconferences very productive. Why cannot the
> majority of the work be done on a mailing list? I personally have
> far too many fixed-time weekly or bi-weekly conference calls
> already. You do state that the primary communication channel is
> documents and mailing list. So I do not see why there is such
> a pressure on repetitive conf calls.
> 
> Bert
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On
> > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto
> > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21
> > To: scrm-private at ggf.org
> > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document
> > draft
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Thank you very much for joining today's call.
> >
> > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document
> > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today.
> >
> > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday
> > (June 9).
> >
> > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes.
> > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> > ----
> > Hiro Kishimoto
> >
> >
> >