There has been some discussion on the current procedure on the mailing list and in private conversations. So, with our "chair" hats on, we submit this as proposal for procedure in this working group. The current procedure is as follows: The normative text in deliverable 2 (or the schema diagram by current lack thereof) should form the basis of the current discussion. Changes to the schema can be made by first posting a proposal for changes on the mailing list. You are encouraged to explicitly agree or disagree with proposals sent to the list. We currently do not have a issue tracker or voting mechanism in place since we feel that is overkill at the moment, but one could be used if participants believe that it would add value. Contrary to what has been said on the list, there is no consensus yet. To quote from the Tao of the IETF (on which the OGF processes are based) (see http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#getting.things.done): - Any decision made at a face-to-face meeting must also gain consensus on the WG mailing list. - It is up to the chair to decide when the Working Group has reached rough consensus. - Decisions tentatively made during an interim WG meeting still must be ratified on the mailing list. Clearly, the schema is still in flux (and the eight changes in one of the previous mails confirms that). So we, as co-chairs, feel that consensus has not been reached yet. That said, we certainly must reach that consensus. We feel that the best way to reach it by discussions on the mailing list, supplemented by face-to-face discussions, exchange of earlier experiences (e.g. with UNIS, cNIS and NDL), and perhaps most important: clear proposals. That is why we strongly encourage Jeroen and others to continue writing the draft of deliverable 2, so that this can be used as further basis for discussions. For particularly contentious issues, we will call for all active participants to indicate their preference. These "calls" for input will be clearly marked and will leave enough time (2 weeks - 1 month) for interested parties to register their input. Finally, if you have any suggestions for improvement of this procedure, feel free to contact us any time, or write a clear proposal for change of the procedure to the mailing list. We wish you all fruitful discussions, and inspired writings. Regards, Freek Dijkstra Martin Swany