Balázs, and everyone else too, I agree that they are similar questions. I believe the situation is now different and improved. The difference is that when we started the use case and requirement definition phase we had proposals on how to proceed, e.g., the "Geneva Execution Service" and the "GES Realization via Existing Specifications" documents produced in the late Spring and Summer of 2009, but no solid requirements with which to compare the proposals. A regular refrain at that time was something along the line of "X does not meet our requirements", yet as a group we had no definition of the requirements. Trying to meet requirements in the absence of an agreement of exactly what the requirements are is a difficult challenge in any circumstance - even harder with such a diverse group. My recollection (perhaps flawed) is that is why we started the whole requirements process at the Munich meeting in March, so that we could make rational (or at least informed) decisions based on requirements going forward. Finally, I agree totally that the process must remain transparent and available to all members (or anyone who wants to join) to discuss. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Konya Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 5:37 AM To: pgi-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] Thoughts on the airplane home (GIN, PGI, Cycle sharing) hi Andrew, thanks for sharing your thoughts. i have just one comment this time :) On 2010-10-30 18:01, Andrew Grimshaw wrote:
PGI profile
This is the big question. Weve gone through use cases, requirements, counting up the use cases that require each requirement, and two approaches to meeting those requirements (see slides).
How are we to proceed? Should we ask each proposer to provide more detail? Should we solicit more proposals? Should we work through both paths? Should we vote?
indeed, these are the difficult questions. these are the same questions the group faced before we went back to the use case/requirement collection/definition phase. whatever happens, the process should be transparent and sufficient time should be made available for group members to digest the developments and the process. cheers, Balazs -- Balázs Kónya Technical Director European Middleware Initiative www.eu-emi.eu NorduGrid Collaboration www.nordugrid.org Lund University balazs.konya@hep.lu.se Institute of Physics, EHEP phone: +46 46 222 8049 BOX 118, S - 221 00 LUND, Sweden fax: +46 46 222 4015 _______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg