Steven Newhouse wrote:
What do you mean by a draft of a 'Production Execution Service'? Is this going to start off with a clean sheet or analyse where the current set of specifications works and where they do not work and propose changes?
It seems a great shame now that someone has finally volunteered to move forward on this to stop the work... having the call so that everyone can understand what the issues are (i.e. those that weren't at the original CERN meeting) would seem to be worthwhile use of the call.
It is important to observe that the PGI activity is not going to stall due to this: as Balazs pointed out, the security discussion must proceed, as a lot of work has been done and we are hopefully going to reach an agreement shortly. As far as the job management task is concerned, we are not going to prepare a full proposal for a PGI execution service: this is something which must be done by the whole PGI working group, and hopefully will follow this initial polishment of the Geneva documents. We were asked many times during the initial PGI teleconferences to provide evidence that the current set of specifications and profiles is not adequate to support the needs for our production infrastructures. We feel that it is time to finally provide an appropriate, written answer to these requests in the form of a well-defined set of requirements for a production-quality job management interface. These requirements would then help focusing the effort of the PGI group on the actual problems. We are unlikely to give appropriate answers to those which were not involved in the CERN meeting during the short timeframe of the call, and the likely outcome is that we will be asked to prepare such a document anyway. Your co-chairs, Balazs, Moreno and Morris. -- Moreno Marzolla INFN Sezione di Padova, via Marzolo 8, 35131 PADOVA, Italy EMail: moreno.marzolla@pd.infn.it Phone: +39 049 8277103 WWW : http://www.dsi.unive.it/~marzolla Fax : +39 049 8756233