Thanks Mathias, I've re-read your draft charter and want to ask you one more twist.
(1) service description document I prefer something like.
"OGSA-RSS WG will provide and have a joint review of a service description."
Actually this sentence means that OGSA-WG will have joint review only on service description but don't on CGS/ESP interface and protocol specifications. I think this is wrong. May I propose one more time; "we will provide and have a joint review of a service description (as an informational document) and of CGS & ESP recommendation specifications. Sorry for nits picking, but we are almost there. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Mathias Dalheimer wrote:
Hi!
Thanks for your feedback, I think you're right. I attached the (hopefully) final charter. Since I would like to submit the charter to our area directors, I would like to ask all people in OGSA-RSS to have a look. I will submit the charter on friday.
Thanks, Mathias
Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
I agree, "affiliated groups" fits better. Maybe Hiro can also state his oppinion.
Since all WG/RG stand on an equal footing, I prefer and am using "fellow WG."
In addition to this, I have two minor comments on proposed charter.
(1) service description document "OGSA-RSS WG will provide it to OGSA-WG" sounds like one-way conversation. I prefer something like.
"OGSA-RSS WG will provide and have a joint review of a service description."
(2) The latest 7 question has an OGSA-WG relation query as a part of Question 4.
I've updated Question 4. However, since your answer has already covered this issue, no modification is necessary.
My edits is in attached document, please have a look.