Dear Alberto, just to clarify an OGF process point: OGF groups are *always* open for participation! In fact, joining the (public) mailing mailing list, or attending any official group meeting, is considered to suffice for joining a group. Having said that, the PGI group could certainly, IMHO, benefit from an explicit contribution from EMI, in particular as many within the group have been trying to cater (amongst others) to EMI's needs, but quite often reached an impasse due to disagreement on general strategies. I for one certainly hope that a direct EMI involvement can help to move the group forward, one way or the other! Best, Andre. On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Morris Riedel <m.riedel@fz-juelich.de> wrote:
All,
a “blocked list e-mail” from EMI to the PGI list with statements to consider and to be discussed in the call later today.
Take care, Morris
Von: Alberto Di Meglio [mailto:Alberto.Di.Meglio@cern.ch] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. November 2010 11:09 An: pgi-wg@ogf.org Cc: Riedel, Morris Betreff: EMI participation in PGI
Dear Morris, dear PGI members,
One of the major objectives of the EMI project is to make sure that all EMI services adopt agreed standards and implement them across all supported middleware stacks in a coherent and consistent way. The work done in PGI is for EMI very important and I would like to make sure that EMI can actively contribute to this work and help producing widely agreed open standards. Until now, EMI has not officially taken part in the PGI activities, despite a number of current PGI members are in one way or another related to EMI.
The existing representatives from ARC, gLite and UNICORE have traditionally represented the long-term objectives of their respective collaborations. EMI has introduced a different perspective and has requirements and interests that are in some way larger than the sum of its parts. In this context, we feel that asking any one of the existing PGI members to represent EMI would not be correct, both for the members and for EMI itself.
I would like to ask you to consider accepting an official EMI representative in PGI to bring the voice of EMI into your activities without ambiguities and with a clear mandate of actively participate to the definition of the PGI specifications on one side and a clear commitment to push the adoption of those specifications in the coming EMI releases.
I’m aware that you have issued a call for comments on a list of requirements on which the PGI members are asked to express their opinion. We are probably late for this round, but we would still like the opportunity to contribute to this phase in some practical way. It is of course up to you to decide how this can be done. For the moment, EMI is selecting a person that will be proposed to you as candidate EMI representative should you decide to accept EMI within PGI.
I look forward to working with you in the future.
Best regards,
Alberto
-- Nothing is ever easy...