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
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@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@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@oerc.ox.ac.uk +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am _VERY_ concerned though that we are half considering cancelling the developer track.
I thought the purpose of the call was to rationalise the proposed workshops into the 10/11 slots. Which I think we did. I don't recall the discussion to cut the developer track... but I may have drifted off at some point.
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.
The software developer track at OGF19 was very diverse and generally well attended - and gained a lot of interest. Why oh why do we now want to loose all of this and return to the Globus/gLite Grid Forum model!!!! Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Steven Newhouse Mob:+44(0)7920489420 Tel:+44(0)23 80598789 Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute-UK (OMII-UK) c/o Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
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@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@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc
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@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@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@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@oerc.ox.ac.uk +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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@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@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@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc
Hi Erwin, Sorry erwin I certainly did not mean to single out gLite and my mistake if it came across like that. My point was that as PC we should be pushing the developer track to be as inclusive as possible. This should certainly include not just job submission mechanisms since that community though large will never be enough on their own to make grid ubiquitous. I would like to ensure we have a fair balance between _ALL_ middleware and was just a little concerned that to untrained eyes (ie the many newcomers from europe generally who will attend OGF hopefuly) we may not appear to be so. Cheers David On 22/2/07 09:35, "Erwin Laure" <Erwin.Laure@cern.ch> wrote:
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@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@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@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@oerc.ox.ac.uk +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes! Fully d'accord! Cheers, -- Erwin David Wallom wrote:
Hi Erwin,
Sorry erwin I certainly did not mean to single out gLite and my mistake if it came across like that. My point was that as PC we should be pushing the developer track to be as inclusive as possible. This should certainly include not just job submission mechanisms since that community though large will never be enough on their own to make grid ubiquitous. I would like to ensure we have a fair balance between _ALL_ middleware and was just a little concerned that to untrained eyes (ie the many newcomers from europe generally who will attend OGF hopefuly) we may not appear to be so.
Cheers
David
On 22/2/07 09:35, "Erwin Laure" <Erwin.Laure@cern.ch> wrote:
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@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@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@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc
participants (4)
-
Dave Berry -
David Wallom -
Erwin Laure -
Steven Newhouse