November 2010 - pgi-wg - lists.ogf.org

Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Chart of priorities for the detailed specification of PGI requirements
by Oxana Smirnova 15 Nov '10

15 Nov '10

Hi, firstly, many thanks go to Etienne for the good work! To Morris: the diagram by Etienne is very well readable and if it indeed reflects the sketch you made in Brussels (you're the one to judge, I'd say), then I'm happy :-) I still can't grasp why we reduced security and data management to non-priority areas. For example, entire data-intensive processing use case becomes pretty much non-addressed without these two key areas, and I mentioned this already in Brussels, but was clearly outnumbered. Specifically, there are plenty converters, gateways and adaptors for information, job description and execution services on the market. However, we still have no common security frameworks, nor do we have unified approach (not even an understanding) for data management services. What would be the estimate of when these two areas can be brought back to the PGI scope? Cheers, Oxana 13.11.2010 7:43, Morris Riedel пишет: > Dear Etienne, > > thanks for your work. > > It looks good and I'm glad to discuss this on the telcon on Thursday. > > @Oxana: > Does this diagram is according to your expectations? > If not, please be concrete where it not matching your expectations or where it is not readable. > Thanks. > > Take care, > Morris > >> -- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> -- Von: Etienne URBAH [mailto:urbah@lal.in2p3.fr] >> -- Gesendet: Freitag, 12. November 2010 22:40 >> -- An: Riedel, Morris; Johannes WATZL; pgi-wg(a)ogf.org >> -- Cc: lodygens(a)lal.in2p3.fr; edgi-na2(a)mail.edgi-project.eu >> -- Betreff: OGF PGI - Chart of priorities for the detailed specification of PGI requirements >> -- >> -- Morris, Johannes, and all PGI members, >> -- >> -- I have saved the attached >> -- 'PGI-Chart-Of-Priorities-For-Detailed-Specification-Of-Requirements.doc' >> -- file at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc16156?nav=1 >> -- >> -- This is an input document for open work. I hope that it will contribute >> -- to the traceability of the OGF PGI process. >> -- >> -- Best regards. >> -- >> -- ----------------------------------------------------- >> -- Etienne URBAH LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS >> -- Bat 200 91898 ORSAY France >> -- Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87 Skype: etienne.urbah >> -- Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27 mailto:urbah@lal.in2p3.fr >> -- ----------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pgi-wg mailing list >> Pgi-wg(a)ogf.org >> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg

1 0

OGF PGI - Chart of priorities for the detailed specification of PGI requirements
by Etienne URBAH 13 Nov '10

13 Nov '10

Morris, Johannes, and all PGI members, I have saved the attached 'PGI-Chart-Of-Priorities-For-Detailed-Specification-Of-Requirements.doc' file at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc16156?nav=1 This is an input document for open work. I hope that it will contribute to the traceability of the OGF PGI process. Best regards. ----------------------------------------------------- Etienne URBAH LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS Bat 200 91898 ORSAY France Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87 Skype: etienne.urbah Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27 mailto:urbah@lal.in2p3.fr -----------------------------------------------------

2 1

Requirements spreadsheet and comment period
by Oxana Smirnova 12 Nov '10

12 Nov '10

Hi Morris, Johannes, all, I cross-checked the PGI mailing list archive, and couldn't find an e-mail containing the call for comments on the requirements spreadsheet prepared in Brussels. The only indication can be found in the 3rd set of OGF session notes, which are very difficult, if at all possible, to interpret for a person who was not present at the meeting. Specifically, Steven suggested to post the "spreadsheet with color code to list" and allow "7 days for objections to the list". This should be a "priority activity of working group" (all quotes are from minutes as is, only verbs are added). Admittedly, it is difficult to understand from the notes whether it was a decision or just a proposal, but my recollection is that everybody agreed to follow this - at least nobody in the room objected. I would thus kindly ask the group chair(s) to actually post the "spreadsheet with color code" to the list and thus launch the 7-days "objections" period, making this a "priority activity". I hope everybody agrees that minutes with non-explicit links and ambiguous wording do not amount for a proper call for comments on a specific document. Those of us who were in Brussels can decode it (like Etienne did), but those who weren't can not. Many thanks, Oxana

3 4

Fwd: PGI requirements list
by Johannes Watzl 12 Nov '10

12 Nov '10

-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: [Pgi-wg] PGI requirements list Datum: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:52:27 +0200 Von: Johannes Watzl <watzl(a)nm.ifi.lmu.de> An: pgi-wg(a)ogf.org Dear all, we are just finished with the PGI sessions here at OGF30. The requirements list including a prioritization based on the use cases can be found on GridForge: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc16080?nav=1 If you have any objections, please send a message to the list before the next PGI call on Thursday, 4 November 2010. Best, Johannes -- _ _ _ _ _ _ Johannes Watzl |\/| |\ | |\/| Institut für Informatik / Dept. of CS | | | \| | | Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München ======= TEAM ======= Oettingenstr. 67, 80538 Munich, Germany Room E 005, Phone +49-89-2180-9162 Munich Network Management Team Email: watzl(a)nm.ifi.lmu.de Münchner Netz-Management Team http://www.nm.ifi.lmu.de/~watzl _______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg

1 0

On importance of meeting minutes
by Oxana Smirnova 12 Nov '10

12 Nov '10

Hi all, I'd like to share my position on meeting notes. Importance of taking minutes or similar kind of notes was recognised from the first days of the PGI, before it was even called PGI. Not that the notes were too informative, but Johannes did his best in his duty as a secretary. Sadly, this practice has all but stopped recently, and I even see rather aggressive opposition towards minute-taking. I find it strange, at least. I've been to countless number of working groups, boards and committees, and even the tiniest gender equality WG of my department has a secretary and minutes. The need for taking minutes is obvious: 1. (and foremost) it allows active participation of group members who couldn't attend a meeting 2. it prevents decisions being contested or misinterpreted by providing documented evidence of decisions made 3. it prevents the group from re-discussing things which were already discussed, or if a need of a new discussion arises, there is always a reference Now, I am sure all these three aspects are very relevant for the PGI. Taking minutes is easy, people do it since the moment they invented written languages, and OGF certainly has many (all?) people with sufficient literacy levels around. I can do it from time to time, but unfortunately I am not available full-time for PGI, and definitely not for the meetings overseas. Cheers, Oxana

1 0

Re: [Pgi-wg] PGI decision-making process - seeking input
by Oxana Smirnova 12 Nov '10

12 Nov '10

Hi Morris, this is not the final text yet, but a call for input, as it is said both in the subject and in the text. Please do not copy it into any Word file, I will send you one (and upload to the GridForge). Cheers, Oxana 12.11.2010 06:06, Morris Riedel пишет: > Hi, > > when I copy this into a word file using font size 11 this process is more than a half page as agreed. Could you please shorten it and make it more concrete to PGI. > > Many thanks. > > Take care, > Morris > >> -- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> -- Von: pgi-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] Im Auftrag von Oxana Smirnova >> -- Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. November 2010 23:27 >> -- An: pgi-wg(a)ogf.org >> -- Betreff: [Pgi-wg] PGI decision-making process - seeking input >> -- >> -- Hi all, >> -- >> -- some suggestions on decision-making process in PGI were already made, both on this list and during today's >> -- meeting (trust me ;-) ). I was appointed by the group co-chair to prepare a proposal for simple internal >> -- guidelines (this ought to be in the minutes). >> -- >> -- I therefore would like to solicit input from those of you who have opinion and did not express it yet. I'll try >> -- to outline the background: >> -- >> -- 1. PGI stands for "Production Grid Infrastructures", specifically: >> -- 1a. Stakeholders represent parties enabling production grid infrastructures: >> -- * administrators >> -- * middleware providers >> -- * users >> -- 2. (1) implies certain group specific, namely: >> -- 2a. Stakeholders enter with pre-existing deployed solutions, related interfaces etc >> -- 2b. There are substantial numbers of customers behind every stakeholder >> -- 2c. There is a substantial, and ever growing, number of stakeholders >> -- >> -- For reference, here's a list of distinct stakeholders represented in PGI which I deduced from currently active >> -- PGI participants, in no particular order: >> -- UNICORE, DEISA/PRACE, Globus/IGE, EDGI, NDGF, ARC, EGI, gLite, GENESIS, TeraGrid, SAGA, NAREGI/RENKEI, NGS (and >> -- I probably missed some). >> -- Several stakeholders are represented by more than 1 individual. Even if UNICORE, ARC and gLite will become a >> -- single EMI stakeholder, there will still be more than 10. >> -- >> -- In general, the group should follow the OGF guidelines and aim to achieve consensus. However, due to the large >> -- number of stakeholders and high stakes, consensus is often practically impossible. In such cases, decisions must >> -- be made following a consistent *open* procedure, and not left to the judgement of a single person: this is how >> -- it is done in modern democratic societies. >> -- >> -- A solution can be to: >> -- a) Limit number of decision-makers by applying criteria such as affiliation (one voice per stakeholder) and/or >> -- attendance (75% attendance of all group meetings, or similar), or >> -- b) Introduce voting procedures (quorum, majority, tie-breaking, veto), or >> -- c) Combine (a) and (b). >> -- >> -- Important decisions which involve complex documents and/or potentially affect functionality of the production >> -- Grid infrastructures, must be well prepared in advance: >> -- * proposal authors must provide sufficient material for the stakeholders such that they can use it to consult >> -- their user base if necessary >> -- * sufficient preparatory stage must be allowed, during which all the stakeholders will have the opportunity to >> -- study the proposals and consult their customers if necessary >> -- * materials must be made public on GridForge and advertised on the PGI mailing list, together with relevant >> -- deadlines >> -- * decisions achieved by consensus, and *especially* those achieved by voting, must be documented in respective >> -- public meeting notes for further reference >> -- >> -- >> -- Please send your thoughts either to the list or directly to me by next Wednesday, November 17. >> -- >> -- >> -- I anticipate irritated comments about overcomplicating the process and violating OGF rules. Believe me, there is >> -- nothing complicated, and this is a very simplified model of public decision-making process, successfully used in >> -- bodies from condominium boards to country parliaments. Ad-hoc procedures, absence of relevant documentation and >> -- reliance on a wise leader typically lead to stagnation and failures, even if there are individual success >> -- stories. I am confident OGF is not pursuing this latter track. >> -- >> -- >> -- Cheers, >> -- Oxana >

1 0

Re: [Pgi-wg] Requirements spreadsheet and comment period
by Oxana Smirnova 12 Nov '10

12 Nov '10

Hi Morris, you perhaps misunderstood my point: please circulate the spreadsheet with requirements, along with a clear call for comments and a clear deadline date for such. Or perhaps Johannes can do it - this is a most trivial task and I see no reason for delays. Many thanks again, Oxana

1 0

PGI decision-making process - seeking input
by Oxana Smirnova 12 Nov '10

12 Nov '10

Hi all, some suggestions on decision-making process in PGI were already made, both on this list and during today's meeting (trust me ;-) ). I was appointed by the group co-chair to prepare a proposal for simple internal guidelines (this ought to be in the minutes). I therefore would like to solicit input from those of you who have opinion and did not express it yet. I'll try to outline the background: 1. PGI stands for "Production Grid Infrastructures", specifically: 1a. Stakeholders represent parties enabling production grid infrastructures: * administrators * middleware providers * users 2. (1) implies certain group specific, namely: 2a. Stakeholders enter with pre-existing deployed solutions, related interfaces etc 2b. There are substantial numbers of customers behind every stakeholder 2c. There is a substantial, and ever growing, number of stakeholders For reference, here's a list of distinct stakeholders represented in PGI which I deduced from currently active PGI participants, in no particular order: UNICORE, DEISA/PRACE, Globus/IGE, EDGI, NDGF, ARC, EGI, gLite, GENESIS, TeraGrid, SAGA, NAREGI/RENKEI, NGS (and I probably missed some). Several stakeholders are represented by more than 1 individual. Even if UNICORE, ARC and gLite will become a single EMI stakeholder, there will still be more than 10. In general, the group should follow the OGF guidelines and aim to achieve consensus. However, due to the large number of stakeholders and high stakes, consensus is often practically impossible. In such cases, decisions must be made following a consistent *open* procedure, and not left to the judgement of a single person: this is how it is done in modern democratic societies. A solution can be to: a) Limit number of decision-makers by applying criteria such as affiliation (one voice per stakeholder) and/or attendance (75% attendance of all group meetings, or similar), or b) Introduce voting procedures (quorum, majority, tie-breaking, veto), or c) Combine (a) and (b). Important decisions which involve complex documents and/or potentially affect functionality of the production Grid infrastructures, must be well prepared in advance: * proposal authors must provide sufficient material for the stakeholders such that they can use it to consult their user base if necessary * sufficient preparatory stage must be allowed, during which all the stakeholders will have the opportunity to study the proposals and consult their customers if necessary * materials must be made public on GridForge and advertised on the PGI mailing list, together with relevant deadlines * decisions achieved by consensus, and *especially* those achieved by voting, must be documented in respective public meeting notes for further reference Please send your thoughts either to the list or directly to me by next Wednesday, November 17. I anticipate irritated comments about overcomplicating the process and violating OGF rules. Believe me, there is nothing complicated, and this is a very simplified model of public decision-making process, successfully used in bodies from condominium boards to country parliaments. Ad-hoc procedures, absence of relevant documentation and reliance on a wise leader typically lead to stagnation and failures, even if there are individual success stories. I am confident OGF is not pursuing this latter track. Cheers, Oxana

3 2

Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for requirements
by Oxana Smirnova 12 Nov '10

12 Nov '10

Hi Morris, all, I can't speak for Balazs, but I do agree that in order to implement the procedures nicely outlined by Andre, we need to define, for each and every decision: 1. what are the alternative options on which decisions have to be taken 2. who can vote (if voting is necessary) 3. which documents are available to support one or another options, and how much time is allotted to study the documents before the decision making So, nothing new - just business as usual, only in an orderly manner. Cheers, Oxana 2010-11-11 14:45, Morris Riedel пишет: > Dear Balazs, > > would you perhaps join the call today in order to explain more in detail what you mean? > > Thanks for your time. > > Take care, > Morris > >> -- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> -- Von: pgi-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] Im Auftrag von Balazs Konya >> -- Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. November 2010 13:46 >> -- An: pgi-wg(a)ogf.org >> -- Betreff: Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for >> -- requirements >> -- >> -- hi Andre, all, >> -- >> -- On 2010-11-07 19:01, Andre Merzky wrote: >> -- > For PGI, my very humble opinion is that a charter update is not needed >> -- > as long as the group is undecided on the explicit way forward -- and >> -- > that decision is long overdue. >> -- > >> -- > If a group is deadlocked like PGI (or rather if it is running circles >> -- > as PGI seems to do), it is the duty of the chairs to push the group >> -- > along. In the worst case, if full consensus cannot be reached, a vote >> -- > on the available options can lead to rough consensus, which ought to >> -- > be enough to get things going again. >> -- >> -- Thanks for this realistic "status report" on PGI. >> -- >> -- I agree, in order to move the group forward, a push is needed. >> -- >> -- So, as a first step, the group should understand the "available options". Then, >> -- after sufficient discussion of these options a vote should take place. >> -- >> -- For the vote, the group should define which group members have a voting right(s). >> -- >> -- And all this process should be done in a transparent relaxed manner, giving >> -- enough time to people to digest the thing they supposed to vote about. Otherwise >> -- the group will run into similar problems Etienne had just discovered. >> -- >> -- bye, >> -- Balazs >> -- _______________________________________________ >> -- Pgi-wg mailing list >> -- Pgi-wg(a)ogf.org >> -- http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pgi-wg mailing list >> Pgi-wg(a)ogf.org >> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg

2 1

Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for requirements
by Oxana Smirnova 11 Nov '10

11 Nov '10

Hi, I'd like to point out that my "interesting thoughts" are directly based on the PGI group description here: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/projects/pgi-wg This was the mandate of the group when it was approved by the OGF, and it explicitly contains the list of relevant standards and specifications, which we just re-discovered. It even contains SRM and GridFTP, well in line with the stated group's committment to deal with data management - something that was contested by the management in Brussels. Perhaps the group description needs to be updated, if management believes it contains controversial statements. What is the procedure for this? Cheers, Oxana 07.11.2010 18:01, Morris Riedel пишет: > Hi, > > Interesting thoughts. Indeed. > > > >-- Or will we start all the specifications from scratch? > > Depends on the rough consensus and majority decisions in the group step by step for each of the specification in question to be > profiled/produces by us. > > >> -- Maybe this is also something to clarify on Thursday. > > Perhaps, but the approach is clear and has been discussed - then with the 'rough consensus' no problem to move forward working on > the specifications. > > > Take care, > Morris > > > > >> -- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> -- Von: pgi-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] Im Auftrag von Oxana Smirnova >> -- Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. November 2010 17:32 >> -- An: pgi-wg(a)ogf.org >> -- Betreff: Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for >> -- requirements >> -- >> -- Hi Morris, all, >> -- >> -- I came to think about the process: now that we have the use cases and have "derived" the requirements (exact set >> -- of which can be still argued and prioritised in various manners), is it time to come back to the specifications? >> -- The "strawman" and such? The high-level scheme on the photo is in no way different from what we had 2 years ago, >> -- after all (remember, the group was called "BES/JSDL/GLUE" in 2008), the circle is complete now. >> -- >> -- Or will we start all the specifications from scratch? >> -- >> -- Maybe this is also something to clarify on Thursday. >> -- >> -- Cheers, >> -- Oxana

4 6