Thanks David, those answers help. Cheers, Andre. Quoting [David Snelling] (Aug 10 2006):
Andre,
On 8 Aug 2006, at 05:21, Andre Merzky wrote:
Hi David, all,
I tried to come up with some productive comments and suggestions for the 'strategy and roadmap' document, but some points are still somewhat unclear to me.
I'll see if I can help.
I see quite some difference between, for example, the OGSA roadmap, and the TSC/OGF strategy and roadmap. That does not neccessarily mean difference in terms of content, but in approach: the OGSA roadmap is made by those people who are going to follow it, and who will make it a reality.
Right.
If the TSC writes down a roadmap, who will care? Remember, OGF is a volonteer army, which will not, or only with resistance, follow any advise or roadmap not created by the very volonteers which are supposed to implement it.
I agree with you here. This is one of the challenges we face. The overall approach that I hope will work is that we set the roadmap to point in the direction we are already heading. Then the TSC roadmap acts as an affirmation to the troops that they are doing the right things. However, I do expect that there will be places we can identify where there will need to be some rallying of the troops. Here we have an important role to play. If there is some gap in the overall picture that does not appear to be on the informal agenda of the existing troops, then the TSC's relationship with key stake holders can help to generate more effort aimed at those goals.
So, is the TSC strategy and roadmap supposed to merely _describe_ what the areas and groups plan to do anyway, or is it in fact trying to do real steering, as it tries to plan ahead for what _should_ be done by the areas and groups?
There is also the possibility that some steering can take place. Remember our volunteers are actually paid by someone. If the organizations see a need then the troops might be encouraged to change focus partially.
But over all, we need to be mostly descriptive, with an overall aim to unify the directions of any mostly parallel activity.
The descriptive approach may be somewhat disappointing to the intended target audience I assume. The prescriptive approach may, as said, be overpromising, and hence would counter the OGF motto 'under-promise -- over-deliver".
I'm inclined to promise little; offer much more, subject to increased involvement from stake holders; and deliver as much as possible. We will also need to identify that guaranteed delivery.
What do you think is the right balance between these points?
Again, mostly descriptive, hence using the OGSA technical roadmap as a starting point. The second focus should be on unifying what else there is. Third focus on gaps and other priorities to motivate increased involvement.
What are the mechanisms for the realization of a potential prescriptive roadmap?
1) Use it to generate new effort already dedicated to the prescribed direction, 2) Rallying cry for faster progress. 3) Slight changes in direction motivated by technical justification (we are the Technical Strategy Committee after all). 4) Ideas welcome.
Thanks, Andre.
Quoting [David Snelling] (Aug 04 2006):
Folks,
Some thoughts from our leader of our little project
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Linesch, Mark" <mark.linesch@hp.com> Date: 3 August 2006 21:39:18 BDT To: "David Snelling" <d.snelling@fle.fujitsu.com>, "David Snelling" <Dave@ThePlateau.com> Cc: <scrumb@ggf.org> Subject: Thoughts on the OGF Technical Direction and Roadmap Document
Dave,
I promised you a few thoughts to think about during vacation ;-) See attached and hope you have a great and productive time off!
Mark Mark Linesch: Open Grid Forum (OGF): Hewlett Packard 281-514-0322 (Tel): 281-414-7082 (Cell) mark.linesch@hp.com : linesch@ogf.org
-- "So much time, so little to do..." -- Garfield _______________________________________________ Tsc mailing list Tsc@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
-- "So much time, so little to do..." -- Garfield