Hi Ravi, "Summary resolutions compiled in one location" is very good idea. However, I worry about who is in charge. Our note taker(s) is doing very good job but I cannot ask him to do additional works. As an co-chair, I have started "telecon log" wiki page which has recorded discussed topics at each call instead of proposed agenda. Thus you can easily locate related minutes. https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1482?nav=1 Actually we need volunteers to maintain suggested resolution summary pages. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Subramaniam, Ravi wrote:

Hi Andreas,

I think intent and means are clashing in our discussion. I feel that we need to capture decisions and consensus that we reached at meetings. The items are spread into minutes (though not always recorded as a resolution) and other discussions including email.

I think these also have two levels like action items. One level is recording the essence in a few lines (whether the topic is on of the domains or procedural like format

ting) like we do with AIs and the other is an elaboration where necessary or possible like a document or in case of an AI the work product of that item. It is very likely that a collection of resolution/decisions/observations would lead to a single document elaboration and a resolution may not have any other elaboration. Maybe the disconnect is that I think you are referring to the latter level and I am indicating the need for the former level. (I think both levels are important and have their value propositions)

Having the 'summary resolutions' compiled in one location (organised

by domain if necessary) allows us to see where we have conflicts and, if as new members join or in course of discussion, we are revisiting earlier resolutions (we may change resolutions but we know that we are changing a previous one and not reinventing). Where we need more clarity on the earlier resolution we may refer to the 'Architectural notes' or other such related document.

My experiential perception is that we have revisted a topic many times

and have reached the same conclusions. This is subjective (and I may be able to dig up a couple of recent examples).

My one cent!

Ravi >

Ravi Subramaniam

-----Original Message----- From: Andreas Savva [mailto:andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com] Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 01:39 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Subramaniam, Ravi Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; OGSA-WG ML Subject: Re: Action item list on wiki (was Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA Teleconference (August 17))

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