Minutes from our call today. Comments please.

Jamie, Mark, Hiro, Winston, Patrick, Bert, Dave.

Thanks for Jamie's excellent minutes. Jamie noted that these notes are very rough and that changes later should be acceptable. General agreement on this.

Drafts for business case and technical scope documents received.

Business Case, Mark L:

Mark: Document overview: Stage setting then why collaboration is a good idea.

Hiro: Should we add "management" to the title.

General agreement.

General: Agreement, but could be driven by the technical scope. 
Distributed computing implies network based computing. Networked is not heterogeneous nor globally distributed. This is also discussed in the technical scope document. Networked might be a subset of distributed in this context.

There are lots of overlaps between the single enterprise and global distributes cases. The boundary between "LAN" and "WAN" is fuzzy.  In a collaboration we need to avoid a term that avoids focus on any one scope, e.g. avoid "Grid", "Distributed", etc. General agreement.

There is not a lower level boundary to the complexity of the scope of this work. This perspective was generally supported.

The "Meta-Operating system" comes close, but is a bit too extreme a concept, but the responsibilities (resource management) of a Meta-OS fall very much into scope, management, discovery, monitoring, control, scheduling, etc. Blade computing may be included in this model and then allow it to extend to inter-enterprise heterogeneous collection of resources.

Question to Hiro to comment.

Hiro: I like Distributed, but agree to use "Management of Networked Resources". General consensus agreed.

Important to retain Network to include IETF.

Second bullet point: SOA line - Flexibility needs to include modularity on the system and its solution. Also include the application of SOA to management of resources. Jamie: noticed the MUWS and MOWS semantic "rat hole" - see WSDM.

Page two: Jamie and Dave liked the last paragraph. The sentence "We build on this starting point through information sharing, project-based collaboration and open, transparent conflict resolution." points accurately to what we are actually trying to do, if a bit aggressive as a goal.

End of second to last para: The sentence "It starts with use cases from research and industry thatdrive the definition and prioritization of requirements. Requirements are synthesized into a set of capabilities that together form a high-level architecture or blueprint." seems a bit linear and idealized than reality. Future tense might solve the problem. But it is important that the issue of overlying Architecture or Landscape needs to be addressed. Standards must be included in this discussion. General agreement.

Winston: Set up a password site and mailing list from the DMTF. This will be included with the list of mechanisms for collaboration we plan to discuss later.

Jamie talked us through the one line definition:

Description, configuration and management of objects, resources and devices used in a [distributed/wide-area] network by means of structured data standards.

Mark: What do Dave and Hiro think about "Description, configuration and management"?

Hiro: Management may or may not cover all.

Dave: Use just Management and define it separately: Description, discovery, deployment, configuration, life-cycle support, monitoring, tuning.

This pair of sentences should be followed up with a short discussion based on Jamie's words.

The phrase "objects, resources and devices" was discussed. Each could include some of the others.

Dave: I like the progression from the abstract to precise order.

Hiro: Would like the two line approach. Use Resource and then define resource in a third sentence. General consensus agreed.

Resolved that "used" is a good verb and that we use just "networked".

Dave want to think about the word "data".

"Standards" is alright as part of the three liner, but need 
clarification as outlined in the following paragraphs.

Consensus for Jamie to send out a candidate final draft.

Actions: Mark  - New draft Business case.
Actions: Jamie - New draft of Tech definition.

Patrick: We need to have a action plan for what we are going to do before we take it to far.

There are pointers to the "To Dos" in Mark's document, but we need a bit more of an action plan or operating model.

Actions: Mark and Dave and Hiro - Draft an operational model document (need Winston's input).
Actions: All   - Take the document trio to home team.

Next Meeting: Monday Sept 27, 2004 at the same time.