Re: [ogf20pc] Notes from last night's telcon
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@ogf.org [mailto:ogf20pc-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Erwin Laure Sent: 22 February 2007 09:35 To: David Wallom Cc: ogf20pc@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
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
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
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
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
David Wallom wrote: products that are the workshop that we are half 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
_______________________________________________ ogf20pc mailing list ogf20pc@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc
Hi Dave,
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.
I think it would be a big mistake to cancel the Developer Track. If we are to consider OGF in its wider role as a community forum to bring together people working in eScience, the Developer track fulfils a previously unaddressed gap for those who are working close to standards but not on them, and those who are working with applications scientists on developing software and applications. The four sessions I attended at OGF19 (GT4, OMII-UK, Genesis-II and OGCE) were all very well attended and generated a lot of ongoing interest. My only comment is that the steer for these sessions should focus them to a developer audience - some veered a bit to high up towards marketing. cheers, neil
I recommended canceling developer track even though I am obviously a strong supporter of it. We simply cannot do a good job with the few slots available for community and developer tracks. We will annoy many people who want to contribute if we announce it and turn down the dozen or more people who will expect to be on track. We should smile and do a good job on community track at OGF20 and reserve doing a good job on developer track at OGF21 neil p chue hong wrote:
Hi Dave,
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.
I think it would be a big mistake to cancel the Developer Track. If we are to consider OGF in its wider role as a community forum to bring together people working in eScience, the Developer track fulfils a previously unaddressed gap for those who are working close to standards but not on them, and those who are working with applications scientists on developing software and applications.
The four sessions I attended at OGF19 (GT4, OMII-UK, Genesis-II and OGCE) were all very well attended and generated a lot of ongoing interest. My only comment is that the steer for these sessions should focus them to a developer audience - some veered a bit to high up towards marketing.
cheers, neil
_______________________________________________ ogf20pc mailing list ogf20pc@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc
-- : : Geoffrey Fox gcf@indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 http://www.infomall.org : Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977 : SkypeIn 812-669-0772 with voicemail, International cell 8123910207
I would back continuing the developer track for the reasons that Neil gives and 1) holding it at OGFn brings people to that Forum who we need in order to identify and define standards; and 2) it probably increases the chances of developers hearing about particular OGF standards and adopting them. Those two effects were behind the idea of developer tracks. The idea should be pursued consistently for it to have a chance of having significant effects. This is likely to be a more direct effect and have a larger impact than some of the community and enterprise activities we engage in. Malcolm On 22/2/07 16:06, "neil p chue hong" <N.ChueHong@epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi Dave,
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.
I think it would be a big mistake to cancel the Developer Track. If we are to consider OGF in its wider role as a community forum to bring together people working in eScience, the Developer track fulfils a previously unaddressed gap for those who are working close to standards but not on them, and those who are working with applications scientists on developing software and applications.
The four sessions I attended at OGF19 (GT4, OMII-UK, Genesis-II and OGCE) were all very well attended and generated a lot of ongoing interest. My only comment is that the steer for these sessions should focus them to a developer audience - some veered a bit to high up towards marketing.
cheers, neil
_______________________________________________ ogf20pc mailing list ogf20pc@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc
Dear all, Having thought about this, after reading the correspondence, on balance I agree with Neil and Malcolm. A developer track needs to be regular and provided that on balance the different middleware systems are able to get access, then I would not be too concerned about the content of an individual OGF. We are going to have to live with a pluralistic world and work to get interoperation so we need to learn about other systems than our own. I also echo Neil's point that marketing is not the purpose of these sessions and respect should be shown that there are several projects of major scope and longevity working towards standards that can promote interoperability. Best wishes. John Malcolm Atkinson wrote:
I would back continuing the developer track for the reasons that Neil gives and 1) holding it at OGFn brings people to that Forum who we need in order to identify and define standards; and 2) it probably increases the chances of developers hearing about particular OGF standards and adopting them.
Those two effects were behind the idea of developer tracks. The idea should be pursued consistently for it to have a chance of having significant effects. This is likely to be a more direct effect and have a larger impact than some of the community and enterprise activities we engage in.
Malcolm
On 22/2/07 16:06, "neil p chue hong" <N.ChueHong@epcc.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi Dave,
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.
I think it would be a big mistake to cancel the Developer Track. If we are to consider OGF in its wider role as a community forum to bring together people working in eScience, the Developer track fulfils a previously unaddressed gap for those who are working close to standards but not on them, and those who are working with applications scientists on developing software and applications.
The four sessions I attended at OGF19 (GT4, OMII-UK, Genesis-II and OGCE) were all very well attended and generated a lot of ongoing interest. My only comment is that the steer for these sessions should focus them to a developer audience - some veered a bit to high up towards marketing.
cheers, neil
_______________________________________________ ogf20pc mailing list ogf20pc@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc
_______________________________________________ ogf20pc mailing list ogf20pc@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc
-- John Brooke co-Director ESNW Room 2.22 Department of Computer Science, Kilburn Building University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK Tel: +44 (0)161 275 6814 Fax: +44 (0)161 275 6024 Web: http://www.sve.man.ac.uk/General/Staff/brooke
participants (5)
-
Dave Berry -
Geoffrey Fox -
John Brooke -
Malcolm Atkinson -
neil p chue hong