Hi, As I see it, we have three things to discuss at GGF; - status of use case and requirements document - status and future plans for API - do we want to 'flip the bit' and become a working group. There has been no comment on the use case document, so I believe we should just submit that to the editors now, and have minimal discussion at GGF. The requirements document is in desperate need of work, so we probably need a full session dedicated to editing it. I intend to get a skeleton of the document (i.e. table of contents) before GGF to start us off. There have been no extremely negative comments on the strawman API developed by the design team, which would suggest that it is generally acceptable, in which case we need to dedicate some time to examining and discussing the remaining rough edges, and deciding how to iterate it forward into a proposed recommendation and provide the language bindings. So, we need at least three sessions: First session: - Usual formalities, Housekeeping and Introduction to group etc. [10 min] - Raise the issue of "flipping a bit" - SAGA-RG to now WG? [10 min] - Move onto discussing the Strawman API and the way forward [70mins] Second Session: - Continue discussion of API progress [90 minutes] Third Session: - Open forum for creating and editing "Requirements Document" [90 min] Obviously we need more detailed agendas for the first two sessions before they happen, and hopefully this can be done before GGF, otherwise we'll need to spend some time in the first session doing so. Outstanding issues with the strawman API that I can think of at the moment are: - security What is the best way to deal with this. - contexts There was a general consensus in the design team that we needed contexts associated with operations/objects, but the details have still to be worked out. - Follow-up design team meetings ? Is it worth having another design team meeting to push the document forward to one which we can vote on as a group and submit to the editors, or can this just happen via the mailing list and phone calls. - Structure of document There is some unhappiness about the structure. We originally wrote it as a set of seperate documents, so this is not entirely surprising; we obviously need to dedicate more time to bringing it together. Please give some feedback on the proposed agenda, as it would be good to flesh it out a bit before sending it off. Cheers, Tom