[scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter
Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
bwijnen at lucent.com
Wed Jun 8 04:42:26 CDT 2005
Minor nit on modified WG charter text:
and will encourage their technical expert to participate in this activity.
I would make it "experts", i.e. plural.
Other than that, thanks for the modifications.
I think I can defend this in IETF.
Hope to have a better feel for that after Thursdays IESG telechat.
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On
> Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 09:51
> To: scrm-private at ggf.org
> Subject: RE: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter
>
>
> Thanks Bert and Dave,
>
> Since all of your comments make sense to me, I've added them to
> the draft charter and 7 Questions & answers.
>
> Please have a look.
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
>
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Sidor [mailto:djsidor at nortel.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:55 PM
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org
> > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter [was: Revised
> press release draft
> > and charter document draft]
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
More information about the scrm-private
mailing list