Dear all, Thankyou Laurence and Sergio, I am pleased that you both share my concerns, although less alarmist than I it has been clear from your steadying hands that you are also concerned about the creeping scope from discovery to modeling and monitoring within Glue. How do I think it could all be resolved so that the experiments and the people who want Glue to be a standard for more than HEP can coexist happily? I feel that Glue and HEP should acknowledge that we are working on a schema, and the great thing about schema's is they can be extended, or in OO speak specialised. I acknowledge that we have some use cases that require publishing and subscribing, and that HEP grids have little choice but to use established Grid infrastructure for there short term production needs. This is not Glue, just the infrastructure for distributing data. So I propose that HEP dominated grids such as wLCG, OSG and NorduGrid should have a separate standardisation process for there extensions to the markup of the there Glue as a separate paper and standard specification. What I see currently particularly in storage is a specialisation of the Tier 1 and Tier 0 markup for wLCG et al Grids. In the context of these grids schema I would find it much more acceptable to add monitoring and Authorization information and even tightly couple to existing Grid infrastructures. Even if I feel that a relational database is a more natural fitting for some fields. In and ideal world I would also allow VO's to be able to publish VO specific data within the publish subscribe infrastructure that GLue also uses. As I know form previous and continuing standardisation efforts its hard work to get what you need in a standard, allowing a free hand to add and remove markup of sites for experiments may be hugely beneficial, particularly as it would remove an imposition to a liberty. What I object to is the hard work of building an abstract description of a site being specialised to the point where it is no longer universal. I see great danger that Glue will only work in its current form in Tier 0 and Tier 1 sites on HEP community grids, I am even concerned that it will be too heavy weight for tier 2/3 sites. I see Glue as a higher purpose, sharing our experience of building a grid with communities that want to build new potentially better grids or cloud computing infrastructures. We may be holding back its adoption with other grids, and the infrastructure that experiments could effectively use with their own markup. The solution maybe to partition the schema effort into multiple views. Universal, HEP Grid Community (wLCG, OSG and NorduGrid), and VO based schema. Since wLCG and VO's want additional markup on top of Glue they are the ones who should mark up the sites, and quite rightly they should be able to demand from their middle ware additional requirements that would not be universal for all grids. For me Glue is something we should be proud of, as Grid pioneers in wLCG, OSG, NorduGrid and the assorted experimental communities we can give the world of grid computing a basis upon which to share or experience of what is common and clearly separate what is not meant to be universal. This would make me happier Regards Owen Synge