Olle, I believe we're thinking along the same lines, though your wording is probably better aligned with how things have been done historically in GGF. I'd just like to see a more streamlined process for rechartering for a new in-scope deliverable. I do agree its important to keep the currently chartered deliverables down to a small size. The fact there already seem to be 3 specs in progress, plus a need to do a scenarios and requirement document, does raise a concern. Blair
-----Original Message----- From: Olle Mulmo [mailto:mulmo@pdc.kth.se] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:09 AM To: Blair Dillaway Cc: Olle Mulmo; David Chadwick; ogsa Authz Subject: Re: [OGSA-AUTHZ] Revised Charter
On Apr 25, 2006, at 02:27, Blair Dillaway wrote:
Does this make sense? As should be evident, I'm in favor of a broadly scoped AuthZ WG charter that can accommodate multiple deliverables. Are there people who would prefer another approach?
The only downside to that is the risk of spreading the workforce too thin, with too many things happening at once.
The approach most commonly used in GGF is to have a narrowly scoped charter with one or two deliverables only, crank on those documents, then recharter (or die). This resolves the group's common sense of urgency of various deliverables up front, as you have to pick and choose what to work on for the short-term.
For longer-lived groups, such a recharter-recharter-recharter strategy is often accompanied by some visionary outlook or roadmap though. Trying to be pragmatic and keep things simple, I don't see why that vision couldn't be described as a "background material" section as you suggest.
Bottom line: as long as the group is healthy, produce sensible output and stay focused on a few things at a time, then the charter doesn't really matter.
/Olle