
Hi all I have made a skeleton of our schema in our groups Wiki. I summarized the discussion we had in Boston and add a little bit of what went on in the mailing list afterwards. As much as emails discussions are useful, they do not leave anything tangible behind. I would urge you to start contribute to the Wiki: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.nml-wg/wiki/Deliver... Only very few of you have an account on GridForge. Please register and start to write down your ideas there. If you have problem registering let me know. Regards, Paola

I'm not sure the best way to go about this. The benefit of a mailing list is that everyone sees what's going on (especially those with more peripheral interest) and it's immediately obvious when new information appears. The downside is that it's very much unstructured. The wiki has the opposite benefits and problems. Does anyone have experience in both? In mine, wiki's haven't provided good areas for discussion, but mailing list stuff seems to never make it into the wiki. Cheers, Aaron Paola Grosso wrote:
Hi all
I have made a skeleton of our schema in our groups Wiki. I summarized the discussion we had in Boston and add a little bit of what went on in the mailing list afterwards.
As much as emails discussions are useful, they do not leave anything tangible behind. I would urge you to start contribute to the Wiki:
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.nml-wg/wiki/Deliver...
Only very few of you have an account on GridForge. Please register and start to write down your ideas there.
If you have problem registering let me know.
Regards, Paola
_______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg

Hi Aaron et al. Aaron Brown wrote:
I'm not sure the best way to go about this. The benefit of a mailing list is that everyone sees what's going on (especially those with more peripheral interest) and it's immediately obvious when new information appears. The downside is that it's very much unstructured. The wiki has the opposite benefits and problems.
Does anyone have experience in both? In mine, wiki's haven't provided good areas for discussion, but mailing list stuff seems to never make it into the wiki.
I am not advocating we stop mailing each other ;-) Discussions via email are certainly central to the WG! The reason for the Wiki is that as a WG we have to deliver a schema at the end. The Wiki has the advantage that everybody sees in real-time the latest status and can easily contribute. Another option would be to write down things in text documents and mail them around, but this is a less scalable and possibly slower approach. Regards, Paola

Aaron Brown wrote:
I'm not sure the best way to go about this. The benefit of a mailing list is that everyone sees what's going on (especially those with more peripheral interest) and it's immediately obvious when new information appears.
Actually I have one more thing. At the end in every WG there will be core contributors. I am encouraging those to make their ideas a little bit more structured and finalized by using the Wiki. So that we have achieved something (some consensus) by next face-to-face meeting. For people with peripheral interests, if the concern is to make sure they kept updated it is very simple to send out a digest of the latest Wiki content once every so even and get comments that way. Regards, Paola

dear all, what I would suggest is to dicuss on the mailing list and to have the actual configurations / schema etc. on the wiki. So sometimes the mailing list reduces to: "I have put a new/updated verson on the wiki". This allows for peripheral interested people to look into the wiki only if major changes have been made. regards Ralph Paola Grosso schrieb:
Aaron Brown wrote:
I'm not sure the best way to go about this. The benefit of a mailing list is that everyone sees what's going on (especially those with more peripheral interest) and it's immediately obvious when new information appears.
Actually I have one more thing.
At the end in every WG there will be core contributors. I am encouraging those to make their ideas a little bit more structured and finalized by using the Wiki. So that we have achieved something (some consensus) by next face-to-face meeting.
For people with peripheral interests, if the concern is to make sure they kept updated it is very simple to send out a digest of the latest Wiki content once every so even and get comments that way.
Regards, Paola
_______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
-- *************************************************** Ralph Niederberger Juelich Supercomputing Centre Institute for Advanced Simulation Phone: +49 2461 61-4772 Fax: +49 2461 61-6656 E-Mail: r.niederberger@fz-juelich.de WWW: http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/ JSC is the coordinator of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing and member of the Gauss Centre for Supercomputing *************************************************** Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH 52425 Jülich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr. Harald Bolt, Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt ***************************************************

Hi Paola, I don't think that the wiki is very useful for discussions. The mailing list is better at that. For one thing, I hesitate to change things if I know there is no clear consensus yet. Instead, I propose that at the end of a discussion, the participants take it upon them to summarize their results on the wiki. If there was a clear consensus, all the better. If there were some controversies, it is up to them to describe the different points of view on the wiki. So I, Aaron, and Evangelos (and perhaps Aurélien and John if they have the coureage) now have a moral obligation to summarize our network / domain / view discussion on the wiki, in order to save others the ordeal of reading our entire flood of mails from two weeks ago. As I see it now, there are only a couple of more or less orthogonal areas for discussion: 0) Basics: Interfaces 1) Domain / Network abstraction (incl. views) 2) Devices and switching capabilities 3) Layers (incl. adaptations between layers) 4) Links and paths (I'll left out the more advanced topics, such as services, location, etc. for now. Let's tackle those as soon as we covered at least a few of the above.) Perhaps we can see if we can structure those discussions a bit. Regards, Freek
participants (4)
-
Aaron Brown
-
Freek Dijkstra
-
Paola Grosso
-
Ralph Niederberger