So, the quorum is not defined yet. This would be the chair group's decision. One representative from minimum 3 groups would be fine. Then what are the groups?

-----Original Message----- From: Ravi Madduri [mailto:madduri@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:47 AM To: asim@lbl.gov Cc: ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-dmi-wg] Telecon minutes from 11/08/06

I thought a representative from atleast 3 of 4 groups involved would be good. do you have any suggestions ?

...

What is the quorum, 10 people?

...

-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-dmi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-dmi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Ravi Madduri Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:17 AM To: ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org Subject: [ogsa-dmi-wg] Telecon minutes from 11/08/06

Participants: Ravi Madduri (ANL) James Casey (CERN) Paolo Badino (CERN)

There was not enough quorum to discuss the agenda items on

Alex Sim wrote: the call.

...

...

-- Ravi K Madduri The Globus Alliance | Argonne National Laboratory http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/~madduri -- ogsa-dmi-wg mailing list ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-dmi-wg

-- Ravi K Madduri The Globus Alliance | Argonne National Laboratory http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/~madduri

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, apologies for not putting up a definition for a quorum. In fact, I think Ravi's definition, and list of groups are quite all right, except that since today we have Oracle participating, too. In fact, as the phone calls have been cancelled for three weeks now due to lack of participation, I really think we should reconsider our phone conf timing. Cheers, Michel Ravi Madduri wrote:

Right.. I am one of the two chairs of the group. The groups i have in mind are 1. RFT 2. FTS 3. SRM copy 4. Unicore 5. IBM

I apologize if I missed any body. In today's call we had RFT and FTS represented.

Alex Sim wrote:

...

So, the quorum is not defined yet. This would be the chair group's decision.

One representative from minimum 3 groups would be fine. Then what are the groups?

...

-----Original Message----- From: Ravi Madduri [mailto:madduri@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:47 AM To: asim@lbl.gov Cc: ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-dmi-wg] Telecon minutes from 11/08/06

I thought a representative from atleast 3 of 4 groups involved would be good. do you have any suggestions ?

...

What is the quorum, 10 people?

...

-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-dmi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-dmi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Ravi Madduri Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:17 AM To: ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org Subject: [ogsa-dmi-wg] Telecon minutes from 11/08/06

Participants: Ravi Madduri (ANL) James Casey (CERN) Paolo Badino (CERN)

There was not enough quorum to discuss the agenda items on

Alex Sim wrote: the call.

...

...

-- Ravi K Madduri The Globus Alliance | Argonne National Laboratory http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/~madduri -- ogsa-dmi-wg mailing list ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-dmi-wg -- Ravi K Madduri The Globus Alliance | Argonne National Laboratory http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/~madduri

- -- Michel <dot> Drescher <at> uk <dot> fujitsu <dot> com Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe +44 20 8606 4834 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFUqaNk0lMZTNKw4QRAue2AJ9SA1D6J/I95zUAsGzwHZ7+e1Ds+ACgsRL6 CxlFTy4jzaWqdwcVL2G9QXk= =9Cdl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reconsidering the timing to facilitate more participation would be a good thing. However, I would challenge the assertion that you must have a quorum in order for there to be a *discussion*. Why not allow any number of people to have a discussion on the phone and use email voting (or some other method) for *decisions*. I assume there is a requirement to post notes after every call, so as long as someone on the call takes notes and posts them, then forward progress can be made. It seems a waste that three times now, there have been people prepared to contribute and they were not able to. Just my 2 cents. Bill

-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-dmi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-dmi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Gavin Mccance Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 1:55 AM To: Michel Drescher; madduri@mcs.anl.gov Cc: ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-dmi-wg] Telecon minutes from 11/08/06

Hi Michel,

16.00 to 17.00 UTC would be better for us (17.00 - 18.00 CET at CERN)

-- though I guess that's 08.00 - 09.00 on the US west coast..

cheers, gav

...

-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-dmi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-dmi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Michel Drescher Sent: 09 November 2006 04:55 To: madduri@mcs.anl.gov Cc: ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-dmi-wg] Telecon minutes from 11/08/06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

apologies for not putting up a definition for a quorum.

In fact, I think Ravi's definition, and list of groups are quite all right, except that since today we have Oracle participating, too.

In fact, as the phone calls have been cancelled for three weeks now due to lack of participation, I really think we should reconsider our phone conf timing.

Cheers, Michel

Ravi Madduri wrote:

...

Right.. I am one of the two chairs of the group. The groups i have in mind are 1. RFT 2. FTS 3. SRM copy 4. Unicore 5. IBM

I apologize if I missed any body. In today's call we had RFT and FTS represented.

Alex Sim wrote:

...

So, the quorum is not defined yet. This would be the chair group's decision.

One representative from minimum 3 groups would be fine. Then what are the groups?

...

-----Original Message----- From: Ravi Madduri [mailto:madduri@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:47 AM To: asim@lbl.gov Cc: ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-dmi-wg] Telecon minutes from 11/08/06

I thought a representative from atleast 3 of 4 groups involved would be good. do you have any suggestions ?

...

What is the quorum, 10 people?

> -----Original Message----- > From: ogsa-dmi-wg-bounces@ogf.org > [mailto:ogsa-dmi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Ravi Madduri > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:17 AM > To: ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org > Subject: [ogsa-dmi-wg] Telecon minutes from 11/08/06 > > Participants: > Ravi Madduri (ANL) > James Casey (CERN) > Paolo Badino (CERN) > > There was not enough quorum to discuss the agenda items on

Alex Sim wrote: the call.

...

> -- > Ravi K Madduri > The Globus Alliance | Argonne National Laboratory > http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/~madduri > -- > ogsa-dmi-wg mailing list > ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-dmi-wg -- Ravi K Madduri The Globus Alliance | Argonne National Laboratory http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/~madduri

- -- Michel <dot> Drescher <at> uk <dot> fujitsu <dot> com Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe +44 20 8606 4834 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFUqaNk0lMZTNKw4QRAue2AJ9SA1D6J/I95zUAsGzwHZ7+e1Ds+ACgsRL6 CxlFTy4jzaWqdwcVL2G9QXk= =9Cdl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ogsa-dmi-wg mailing list ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-dmi-wg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bill, Ravi, Ravi Madduri wrote:

This makes sense to me. I am interested to know what others think.

William E. Allcock wrote:

...

Reconsidering the timing to facilitate more participation would be a good thing. However, I would challenge the assertion that you must have a quorum in order for there to be a *discussion*. Why not allow any number of people to have a discussion on the phone and use email voting (or some other method) for *decisions*. I assume there is a requirement to post notes after every call, so as long as someone on the call takes notes and posts them, then forward progress can be made. It seems a waste that three times now, there have been people prepared to contribute and they were not able to.

this approach works if you have a decent deal of people on the call. I do not expect *all* OGSA-DMI participants be on each call, but at least a more or less representative subset. This is not so much about formality for official votes, but to have a representative subset. Otherwise, the discussions would be simply taken on and on on the mailing list, rendering the phone calls superfluous. But then, if everybody else agrees, there will be no "no quorate" anymore so even if there are only, say, three people on the call the call will carry on. I'll think about voting/consensus approaches further. Cheers, Michel - -- Michel <dot> Drescher <at> uk <dot> fujitsu <dot> com Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe +44 20 8606 4834 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFU1Lzk0lMZTNKw4QRAkOWAJ9VANufYkJj07Nqm/6adHe8kp2f0ACfSCBE Sa9B+ftN8FM7B7xVYHUC2No= =bvsM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----