RE: [appagg-rg] RE:APPAGG Minutes attached

At 7:19 PM +0200 3/20/05, dimitris lioupis wrote:

Dear Cees,

There is no doubt in my mind that the AD's will eventually decide which way to go as far as the APPAGG rg is concerned. I was only expressing my opinion for everyone involved to know. I will keep pursuing the involvement of more interested parties in this work as described before, and start preparing the architecture document for circulation.

sounds good, Best regards, Cees.

Regards, -Dimitris-

-----Original Message----- From: Cees de Laat [mailto:delaat@science.uva.nl] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:21 AM To: dimitris lioupis; 'Ian Taylor' Cc: appagg-rg@ggf.org Subject: [appagg-rg] RE:APPAGG Minutes attached

Please note that the mail from David DeRoure was addressed to me and we (the AD's) will ultimately select if we want to see a recharter or closing and going through a bof procedure. Currently I must say we prefer the clean BOF way for a new charter combining interests from ubiquitous computing and appagg but nothing is carved in stone yet.

Best regards, Cees.

At 11:07 AM +0200 3/16/05, dimitris lioupis wrote:

...

Dear Ian,

Yes there was some interest (20 attended) and there was discussion in the end. I have presented some results we obtained at Patras Univ. and it all went well.

There are two options as suggested by David De Roure (see also his attached email): 1. complete the documents described in the charter and conclude the rg and get a pad on the back, or 2. Restructure the charter and increase the scope of the rg to include ubiquitous computing, artificial intelligence, sensor networks and such to get more people involved and increase the engagement and consensus in APPAGG. We could even call it UBICOM-RG if that is the general consensus.

I favour the second approach as it will set us up faster to keep working on our research and avoid the BOF stages. In the meantime we should try to generate interest in this work. I am attending a workshop on Ubiquitous Computing in Edinburgh next may and I am also trying to get in touch with CoreGRID who have similar interests. If we generate enough interest we can do either of the 2 scenarios described above.

What do you think?? Can you help?? Regards -Dimitris-

-----Original Message----- From: Ian Taylor [mailto:Ian.J.Taylor@cs.cardiff.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:19 PM To: Omer F. Rana Cc: dlioupis@cti.gr Subject: Re: Minutes attached

Excellent - what was the outcome? - was there much interest?

Ian

On 14 Mar 2005, at 08:41, Omer F. Rana wrote:

...

Hi,

Good presentation today for the Appliances group. Minutes are attached.

regards Omer

-- http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/User/O.F.Rana/index.html / work-fax:+44(0)29-2087-4598 work:+44(0)29-2087-5542 / other:+44(0)7956-299981 / distributed collaborative computing / room n2.14 / school of computer science / cardiff university queen's buildings / newport road / cardiff cf24 3aa / wales / uk

---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. Lecturer, School of Computer Science, Cardiff. Assistant Professor, Dept. Computer Science and CCT, LSU. www.cs.cf.ac.uk/user/I.J.Taylor/ & www.p2pgridbook.com Tel: +44-781110 3142

From: "David De Roure" To: "Cees de Laat" Cc: "Dimitris Lioupis" , "Oliver Storz" , "Omer F. Rana" Subject: appliance aggregation Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:52:20 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=6.0 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: dder@ecs.soton.ac.uk via kronos.cti.gr X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.24 (Clear:RC:0(152.78.70.1):SA:0(0.0/6.0):. Processed in 0.605132 secs) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2005 13:52:39.0960 (UTC) FILETIME=[16556980:01C5289D] Thread-Index: AcUonRXCkK8ulhtaRJCW/u7Et85+Bw== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: x-sender: dder@pandora x-mailscanner-from: dder@ecs.soton.ac.uk x-ecs-mailscanner: Found to be clean x-mailscanner-information: Please contact helpdesk@ecs.soton.ac.uk for more information

Cees - a brief report of afternoon discussions around the Appliance Aggregation session (minutes of the session will be provided separately).

The context of the session is that this RG had a 36 month charter and is now at the end of this time, so Dimitris is planning to bring the activity to a close. The group has produced the first of 3 documents and is preparing to produce the next (architecture) prior to the final one (standards). Dimitris appears to be pretty much on his own as the others who had been involved in a leadership capacity and in active work appear to have withdrawn from this GGF activity.

The session had reasonable attendance and attracted a little discussion. Dimitris invited volunteers to help with the next document but on the whole people continued to read their email rather than raising their hands.

Afterwards we had a "gang of four" meeting with Oliver and Omer Rana (Omer had acted as secretary for the session - he used to run a JINI activity in GGF and has an interest in ubiquitous computing and sensor networks).

We discussed the nature of a future ubiquitous activity in GGF. We felt that it may be appropriate to bring Appliance Aggregation to a close and then create a new activity informed by the results of the Appliance Aggregation work. The new RG could bring together the interests and enthusiasm of Oliver and Dimitris as leaders, and Omer is very supportive.

Subject to discussion with you, we also considered that the best way to wrap up the current RG might be to combine the remaining 2 reports into one and then to use this output as a basis for the new activity - this will make it as useful as possible and perhaps also easier to deliver.

Another strategy would be to review the Appliance Aggregation charter to extend it into the new activity. I prefer the neatness of finishing one and starting a new one. This will of course introduce a hurdle - i.e. it remains to be tested whether or not there is sufficient interest to create a new RG.

I am waiting to see what the Sensor RG BoF is about tomorrow before considering whether a new RG would have a broad umbrella which includes sensor networks or whether there should be a distinct sensor activity.

We also discussed various research projects which are playing in this space, and how we can bring their work to GGF. I took an action to follow up with CoreGrid as this has a peer-to-peer aspect. Another case in pointis the Akogrimo project, which includes mobility and grid. The european funding programme does encourage standards engagement, so this could be mutually beneficial.

Finally, it seems to me that from a community engagement perspective there is value in establishing these links with parts of the ubiquitous community, as it is a growing community with increasing interest in the grid - so I am keen to keep these discussions going.

Thanks

-- Dave

-- http://www.science.uva.nl/~delaat/

-- http://www.science.uva.nl/~delaat/