Notes for the BitFlipping F2F meeting at GGF15 
(Minutes by Craig Lee, (major) annotations by Andre and Shantenu)

Attendendees: 
-------------

  - Andrew Grimshaw
  - Shantenu Jha
  - Thilo Kielmann
  - Hiro Kishimoto
  - Craig Lee
  - Andre Merzky
  - Steven Newhouse
  - Stephen Pickles
  - Dave Snelling
  - Dieter Kranzlmueller 

Agenda: 
-------

  - Agenda Bashing
  - Documenting the decision process
  - Finish the Requirements Doc
  - Addressing business (non-scientific) use cases and
    requirements
  - Compatibility with the SOA approach
  - Degree of alignment with OGSA
  - More specific than simple SOA alignment?
  - New charter needs to include statements indicating degree of
    (strong) alignment
  - OGGA-SAGA?

Minutes: 
--------

  - Chartering issue; 
    - Issue: scope is not well enough defined
    - Answer: defined by use cases
  - Scope hasn’t been fully spec’d yet
    - it is in the Req. doc (ahem)
  - Thilo: “sausage before the nose”
  - Scope of group is diff from scope of document
  - split Strawman API doc in pieces?
    - was discussed: No!
  - Coordination of APIs?
    - in contact with CPR, RPC: good cooperation, more planned
  - SAGA split up into subgroups instead to turn into a single
    WG?  (could be cottage industry like OGSA)
    - premature, revisit later
  - but common look-and-feel is important
    - yes, and we will have that! 
    - efforts already being made, e.g. in contact with RPC
  - Coordinate with other groups/APIs, e.g., JSDL and DRMAA 
    - in progress!
  - modify charter to reflect sync with OGSA etc.  (don’t want
    gap between OGSA and SAGA, i.e. between middleware model and
    API)
    - see mail about revised WG charter
  - implementability/compatibility of SAGA on top of
    GT2/OGSA/..., w/o implementors dying horrible death
    - need feedback and input (sanity check) from OGSA on final
      spec (paradigms compatible?  Assumptions to model?
      Feedback from SAGA to OGSA and vice versa!)
    - SAGA reference implementations need checks against OGSA
      compliant implementations as those become available
       - Sanity check if OGSA and SAGA fit?  Need
         implementations!
       - File I/O – byte io spec, name space spec, …
       - Mixed team for sanity check
       - Workshop?
  - charter statements:
    - Will coord w/ OGSA and other groups as necessary
    - OGSA-SAGA (OGSAGA) group? 
      - No but want to be broad
      - OGSA-SAGA profile?  a potential coordination mechanism,
        needs discussion (e.g. a SAGA-GT2 profile would mask out
        the call job.migrate (), as GT2 does not support it)
        - need to clarify what is supported by diff middleware
          bindings (the current statement in the API document is:
          "MUST implement as much as possible")
    - Housekeeping: SAGA-WG on GridForge – just start using it

Conclusion:
-----------

  - Finishing the Requirements doc to document the decision
    process should be done but SHOULD not be a pre-condition for
    becoming a working group
  - The general consensus was that SAGA is ready to become a
    working group (hurray!)
  - mentioned issues have been discussed in the RG, and should be
    publicly reflected by the new WG charter etc.
  - We just need to manage the process to address issues of
    scope, SOA compatibility, degree of alignment with OGSA etc.
  - SAGA-RG will produce a WG charter proposal addressing the
    issues above
  - Lets go Party!
    ==============