- ogf20pc - lists.ogf.org

Re: [ogf20pc] Allocating workshops to slots (DRAFT) - free spaces
by Dave Berry 26 Feb '07

26 Feb '07

Dear all, It seems I misunderstood - David and Wolfgang are requesting 5 sessions (or at least 4) for their combined workshop. This would make it last all day on Monday and would solve the question of what to do with the free sessions on Monday morning. This does point out that one other potential use for free slots would be to extend the already allocated workshops. E.g. the astronomy people originally requested 5 slots, the SLA workshop combines two requests for 2 sessions, and the SOKU organisers requested 4 sessions. Dave. > -----Original Message----- > From: ogf20pc-bounces(a)ogf.org > [mailto:ogf20pc-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Berry > Sent: 25 February 2007 17:31 > To: ogf20pc(a)ogf.org > Subject: [ogf20pc] Allocating workshops to slots (DRAFT) - free spaces > > Dear all, > > As promised, I took a look at how we might allocate workshops > to slots. > Before going any further, let me stress that the attached > spreasheet is > purely exploratory. The aim of this exercise is to > investigate how much > room we have for manouevre. Even the mapping of workshops to days is > conjectural, let alone the allocation of individual rooms. > > The exercise does reveal some scope for flexibility. David Wallom and > Wolfgang Gentzsch tell me they can combine their workshops into one, > needing three sessions. This removes some of the strain. > The result is > that we can fit in the e-Humanities workshop and still have some > sessions left over to allocate. In the attached scenario, > there are two > free sessions on the Monday morning, two on the Monday > evening, and one > on the Tuesday morning (although othe rvariations are possible). > > I can think of several possible uses for these extra sessions > and would > appreciate your input on which of these (or others) would > give the best > results: > > - I think we need an e-science community session of some sort on the > Tuesday morning. One possibility would be to have an invited talk. > > - We could try and squeeze in the e-health workshop. Although if this > has a largely UK focus (even with an expended remit), Monday > might be a > poor choice of day - so it might involve a swap with the Astro or > e-Humanities workshop. > > - We could add some more technology reviews. We have specifically > received proposals from OGSA-DAI, OMII-Europe and the Gridway > metascheduler, and there are many others "carried forward" from OGF19. > (Personally, I think Condor would be the next in the list in terms of > widespread use). > > - I am trying to fit in a talk from the European Commission. > Currently > I'm thinking of doing this by reducing Wednesday's lunch to > an hour, but > perhaps another approach would be to give this as an invited talk in a > normal session, perhaps even combined with OMII-Europe? We'd probably > have to jiggle the attached scenario to get the best choice > of days for > this. > > Dave Berry > Deputy Director, Research & E-infrastructure Development > National e-Science Centre, 15 South College Street > Edinburgh, EH8 9AA Tel: +44 131 651 4039 > >

1 0

Allocating workshops to slots (DRAFT) - free spaces
by Dave Berry 25 Feb '07

25 Feb '07

Dear all, As promised, I took a look at how we might allocate workshops to slots. Before going any further, let me stress that the attached spreasheet is purely exploratory. The aim of this exercise is to investigate how much room we have for manouevre. Even the mapping of workshops to days is conjectural, let alone the allocation of individual rooms. The exercise does reveal some scope for flexibility. David Wallom and Wolfgang Gentzsch tell me they can combine their workshops into one, needing three sessions. This removes some of the strain. The result is that we can fit in the e-Humanities workshop and still have some sessions left over to allocate. In the attached scenario, there are two free sessions on the Monday morning, two on the Monday evening, and one on the Tuesday morning (although othe rvariations are possible). I can think of several possible uses for these extra sessions and would appreciate your input on which of these (or others) would give the best results: - I think we need an e-science community session of some sort on the Tuesday morning. One possibility would be to have an invited talk. - We could try and squeeze in the e-health workshop. Although if this has a largely UK focus (even with an expended remit), Monday might be a poor choice of day - so it might involve a swap with the Astro or e-Humanities workshop. - We could add some more technology reviews. We have specifically received proposals from OGSA-DAI, OMII-Europe and the Gridway metascheduler, and there are many others "carried forward" from OGF19. (Personally, I think Condor would be the next in the list in terms of widespread use). - I am trying to fit in a talk from the European Commission. Currently I'm thinking of doing this by reducing Wednesday's lunch to an hour, but perhaps another approach would be to give this as an invited talk in a normal session, perhaps even combined with OMII-Europe? We'd probably have to jiggle the attached scenario to get the best choice of days for this. Dave Berry Deputy Director, Research & E-infrastructure Development National e-Science Centre, 15 South College Street Edinburgh, EH8 9AA Tel: +44 131 651 4039

1 0

Re: [ogf20pc] Notes from last night's telcon
by Dave Berry 23 Feb '07

23 Feb '07

Folks, My understanding is that the developer track is not organised by the PC but by people within the OGF organisation. This is similar to the way the Entreprise track is organised. There is a suggestion to cancel the developer track at OGF20, as we are short of slots and have several good workshop proposals. E.g. we would like to fit in the Arts and Humanities workshop. If we do cancel the developer track, we can still schedule some isolated technology review sessions, without making them into a formal track. We are committed to a session on Glite, partly as a past commitment from OGF19 and partly because it is perfect content for the overlap day with the EGEE User Forum. We have also a commitment to a GT4 session. As UK e-Science are hosting both events, I think the OGF should also allocate a session for OMII-UK. That is the minimum; they could stop at just these three sessions. I don't agree with the conjecture that by hosting a session on a particular technology, OGF is in any way endorsing that technology. My understanding of these technology review sessions is that they are to provide a chance for users of a technology to meet the developers of that technology, without any implication that OGF does or does not endorse it. In fact I'm not aware of any mechanism or any proposal for a mechanism by which OGF would endorse any given technology. If you want to discuss such a possibility, I suggest that's a topic for another forum. Best wishes, Dave. > -----Original Message----- > From: ogf20pc-bounces(a)ogf.org > [mailto:ogf20pc-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Erwin Laure > Sent: 22 February 2007 09:35 > To: David Wallom > Cc: ogf20pc(a)ogf.org; Geoffrey Fox > Subject: Re: [ogf20pc] Notes from last night's telcon > > Hi David, > > I don't think you get my point: I was asking what the procedure for > filling the developers track are. I simply don't know. > > Since you seem to have a specific problem with me assuming > gLite would > get a slot: In time of OGF19 I responded to the invitation I've got > presenting gLite in the developers track that we won't do it > at OGF19, > but rather at OGF20, so I assume I will get the slot having > registered a > long time ago ;-) Also, don't forget that this is a > co-organized event > with the program for Wednesday being shared and developed jointly! > > I share your concerns about "OGF promoting software" but > that's a more > general point on the developers track that should not be discussed in > the PC but the relevant OGF bodies. > > Cheers, > > -- Erwin > > David Wallom wrote: > > Hi Erwin, > > > > I feel that should we have the developer track then it > should be along the > > lines of 'all or nothing', independent of what has been > externally promised > > to certain groups. > > We cannot as an organisation (OGF that is not EGEE) be seen > to publicly back > > one or two sets of m/ware over another, especially those > products that are > > not using many of the standards that are in draft left alone > > recommendations. > > This may leave those that fund people to visit OGF > questioning why all this > > work on standards that aren't being incorporated into > software that OGF is > > being seen to promote. My point is that it is all about > image and in some > > further ways as a man from Google said today on the BBC > 'eating our own > > dogfood'. > > > > Regards > > > > David > > > > > > On 22/2/07 08:21, "Erwin Laure" <Erwin.Laure(a)cern.ch> wrote: > > > > > >>Hi David, > >> > >>I don't think this is what we decided. We only discussed > the workshop > >>program and from the submissions received we identified > some that would > >>better fit into the developers track. There are already > other sessions > >>considered for the developers track, like gLite and globus. > >> > >>However, I (and the people on the phone last time) don't > know how the > >>developers track eventually will be put together, i.e. how > contributions > >>are solicited. Geoffrey? > >> > >>Cheers, > >> > >>-- Erwin > >> > >>David Wallom wrote: > >> > >>>Hi Dave et al, > >>>Many thanks for these notes. I am _VERY_ concerned though > that we are half > >>>considering cancelling the developer track. I feel that we > either cancel it > >>>all or have a fully representative set of middleware & > tools. Since a large > >>>part of the UK e-Science community will be there who would > not normally > >>>attend we would be in danger of giving the impression that > these two and > >>>these two alone are OGF recommended middleware, which > bearing in mind that > >>>they are largely not standards based may seem an error. > >>> > >>>Regards > >>> > >>>David > >>> > >>>On 21/2/07 23:11, "Dave Berry" <daveb(a)nesc.ac.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>All, > >>>> > >>>>As promised, here are the notes fron last night's > telephone meeting. As > >>>>you will see, we are recommending several mergers between proposed > >>>>workshops. I have mailed the organisers of the relevant > workshops. > >>>> > >>>>Best wishes, > >>>> > >>>>Dave Berry > >>>>Deputy Director, Research & E-infrastructure Development > >>>>National e-Science Centre, 15 South College Street > >>>>Edinburgh, EH8 9AA Tel: +44 131 651 4039 > >>>> > >>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>ogf20pc mailing list > >>>>ogf20pc(a)ogf.org > >>>>http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc > >>> > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > ogf20pc mailing list > ogf20pc(a)ogf.org > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc >

5 4

Workshop update
by Dave Berry 22 Feb '07

22 Feb '07

All, The organisers of the workshops that I have contacted have agreed to the suggested mergers, so it looks like we will have workshops on computational steering, dynamic SLAs, and astronomy. I haven't heard back from the organisers of the SOKU workshop yet. Wolfgang and David are discussing the workshops on Community Grids and Campus Grids. I need to concentrate on the industry track for a while. I will also attempt a draft assignment of workshops to sessions, which should clarify some of the issues raised this morning. Best wishes, Dave Berry Deputy Director, Research & E-infrastructure Development National e-Science Centre, 15 South College Street Edinburgh, EH8 9AA +44 131 651 4039

1 0

Notes from last night's telcon
by Dave Berry 22 Feb '07

22 Feb '07

All, As promised, here are the notes fron last night's telephone meeting. As you will see, we are recommending several mergers between proposed workshops. I have mailed the organisers of the relevant workshops. Best wishes, Dave Berry Deputy Director, Research & E-infrastructure Development National e-Science Centre, 15 South College Street Edinburgh, EH8 9AA Tel: +44 131 651 4039

4 7

EU presentations at OGF20/EGEE User forum
by Bob Jones 22 Feb '07

22 Feb '07

Hi Dave et al., I have been contacted by the European Commission about their representation at the OGF20/EGEE User forum event. They suggested Jesus Villasante (Head of Unit for Software & Service Architectures and Infrastructures) as a keynote on Monday or Tuesday and Mario Campolargo (Head of Unit for GEANT and eInfrastructures) on Wednesday. For an overview of their positions in the Commission see here: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/directory/index_en.htm Cheers, Bob. Bob Jones EGEE-II Project Director www.eu-egee.org CERN tel: +41 76 487 4901

1 0

Grid Means Business track
by Dave Berry 21 Feb '07

21 Feb '07

Dear PC, Here is a note on the current status of the Grid Means Business track, updated with proposals received via the CfP. I think I have missed some of the people that were suggested as speakers - please take a look and let me know of any mistakes. We need to firm up the remaining speakers for this track. Best wishes, Dave Berry Deputy Director, Research & E-infrastructure Development National e-Science Centre, 15 South College Street Edinburgh, EH8 9AA +44 131 651 4039

2 1

Re: [ogf20pc] Summary of rankings received
by Dave Berry 21 Feb '07

21 Feb '07

Yes - I'll send out full notes of yesterday's meeting this evening. Dave. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Wallom [mailto:david.wallom@oerc.ox.ac.uk] > Sent: 21 February 2007 11:49 > To: Dave Berry; ogf20pc(a)ogf.org > Subject: Re: [ogf20pc] Summary of rankings received > > Hi Martin and Stephen, > > During last night we agreed that both of these should come > into the Campus > Grids workshop and so I will be communicating with the proposer ASAP. > There were two other areas where this was considered the > case, Computational > Steering and Astro. > > Regards > > David > > > On 21/2/07 11:42, "Stephen M Pickles" > <Stephen.Pickles(a)manchester.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > The problem with these proposals is not Condor, > > it's the narrowness of the scope, and lack of > > context. > > > > It can't go in the developer's track, because > > the presenters don't speak for Condor. > > > > However, I'm sure that these guys have some > > valuable lessons to share about their experiences > > with Condor. The scope and context problems would > > be solved by putting them in the Campus Grid > > workshop. > > > > Stephen > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ogf20pc-bounces(a)ogf.org > >> [mailto:ogf20pc-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Walker, Martin > >> Antony (HPTC) > >> Sent: 21 February 2007 11:23 > >> To: Dave Berry; ogf20pc(a)ogf.org > >> Subject: Re: [ogf20pc] Summary of rankings received > >> > >> Dave, > >> > >> A comment on the Condor ranking (lowest rank, but very high > >> deviation): > >> Condor is to my knowledge the only open-source grid middleware tool > >> being used in industry for production grids, both in America > >> and Europe. > >> I would have thought this should significantly increase > the ranking of > >> these two proposals. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ogf20pc-bounces(a)ogf.org > >> [mailto:ogf20pc-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf > >> Of Dave Berry > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:49 PM > >> To: ogf20pc(a)ogf.org > >> Subject: [ogf20pc] Summary of rankings received > >> > >> Dear PC, > >> > >> I attach a summary of rankings received so far. The > spreadsheet shows > >> the mean and standard deviation for each proposal. > >> > >> This includes rankinngs received from: Fotis karayannis, > Kimmo Koski, > >> Stephen Pickles, John Brooke, John O'Callaghan, Roger Barlow, > >> Jysoo Lee, > >> John Easton, Rob Procter, Erwin Laure, Neil Chue Hong, Jim Austin, > >> Steven Newhouse, Rizos Sakellariou, Bob Cohen, Stephanie > Parker, Dave > >> Berry. > >> > >> Dave Berry > >> Deputy Director, Research & E-infrastructure Development National > >> e-Science Centre, 15 South College Street > >> Edinburgh, EH8 9AA Tel: +44 131 651 4039 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ogf20pc mailing list > >> ogf20pc(a)ogf.org > >> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ogf20pc mailing list > > ogf20pc(a)ogf.org > > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc > > > > -- > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Dr. David Wallom > Technical Manager > Oxford e-Research Centre > University of Oxford > 7 Keble Road > Oxford > OX1 3QG > > Tel : +44 (0)1865 610601 > email: david.wallom(a)oerc.ox.ac.uk > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >

1 0

Summary of rankings received
by Dave Berry 21 Feb '07

21 Feb '07

Dear PC, I attach a summary of rankings received so far. The spreadsheet shows the mean and standard deviation for each proposal. This includes rankinngs received from: Fotis karayannis, Kimmo Koski, Stephen Pickles, John Brooke, John O'Callaghan, Roger Barlow, Jysoo Lee, John Easton, Rob Procter, Erwin Laure, Neil Chue Hong, Jim Austin, Steven Newhouse, Rizos Sakellariou, Bob Cohen, Stephanie Parker, Dave Berry. Dave Berry Deputy Director, Research & E-infrastructure Development National e-Science Centre, 15 South College Street Edinburgh, EH8 9AA Tel: +44 131 651 4039

4 3

OGF20 community submissions for ranking
by Dave Berry 20 Feb '07

20 Feb '07

Dear PC, Please find attached a spreadsheet that summarises the proposals received via the CFP. Our immediate task is to rank the submissions on the first sheet, which lists the workshop proposals. As discussed, please use the following ranking: 1 - Not suitable for OGF. 2 - A session that fails some of the criteria and should only be included if we need to fill slots. 3 - A good session that fits all or most of the criteria; to be included if slots is available. 4 - A good session that fits all the criteria; to be included if possible. 5 - An excellent session that should be included no matter what Do add comments where appropriate, e.g. if you wish to recommend merging with another session, or accepting with fewer sessions. Please mail your rankings to me and I will summarise. We will discuss the results on next Tuesday's call. Note: non-workshop proposals have been moved to the other sheets - Enterprise sessions, Grid Means Business, and Other. Please note that these sheets do not show the complete line-up for these tracks; only those submitted via the CFP. Best wishes, Dave Berry Deputy Director, Research & E-infrastructure Development National e-Science Centre, 15 South College Street Edinburgh, EH8 9AA +44 131 651 4039

5 5