Hi Andreas and Ravi, I think OGSA-WG should preserve a delicate balance between light & doable process and precise discussion record which avoids repeated arguments. I agree with Andreas to use current very light-weight AIs maintenance process. WRT. resolutions Ravi mentioned, we may create new wiki pages to keep resolutions if we have volunteers. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Andreas Savva wrote:
Ravi,
I still feel that what you are asking is too fine-grain and would not work in the long run. What is really needed is to document what the approach is on important topics.
Taking the 'font' example below it would not be very useful on a general list of resolutions if that list also included stuff on information modeling, execution management, data access, security, etc. Instead if someone thinks a topic is important and they want to maintain a short (or long) document explaining what the group consensus is, and *keep it up-to-date* I would be all for it.
I'll just point out that I did set up an "Architecture Notes" forum some time back and we still only have one note there. But it's a very good note and I later used it to write up one subsection in OGSA 1.5.
Andreas
Subramaniam, Ravi wrote:
Thanks. I am ok with Andreas' rationale too.
Just a quick clarification though: The "resolution" I was referring to was not the resolution of the action item but noting any resolutions that were made/taken in the meeting, for example, if we decided that "All documents will be in 12 point font". It would be good to record such resolutions taken (or maybe there is a better word than 'resolution'). These will likely be around for a while and so the 'year' may be required here :-).
Ravi