Hi, thank you Andre for explaining the procedures, and Morris for being so positively inclined :-) On a sarcastic note, the simplest working code on which a consensus can easily be reached is "return 0". In PGI, we are up to much more challenging goals. Allow me this copy-and-paste from the current PGI charter: <quote> Goals This group will deliver the following document: * Production Grid Infrastructure Roadmap Document (GFD-I) * Provides an overview of missing links between open standards and the fundamental motivation for standardization of the production grid infrastructure profiles * Secure Job and Data Management Profile in Production Grids (GFD-R.P) * Develop a job/data/security profile assuming an deployed computing endpoint is already known by an end-user * Secure Information Profile in Production Grids (GFD-R-P) * Allows a user to discover resources that are appropriate for their request and that they are authorized to access * Secure Accounting Profile in Production Grids (GFD-R-P) * Develop an accounting profile that allows services to securely update a service within information about the resources they have used on behalf of a user. * Secure Monitoring Profile in Production Grids (GFD-R-P) * Develop a profile that allows services to securely record in a service the progress of an activity. </quote> Pretty challenging, IMHO. I only hope "rough consensus" will be possible - and indeed *useful* for code - in each of these cases. Unless of course the "living charter" process will evolve these goals into something easier to achieve. Cheers, Oxana 07.11.2010 20:06, Morris Riedel пишет:

Hi,

that's what I had in mind too.

...

-- 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. "Rough consensus - running code" -- is the motto for OGF (borrowed from IETF, -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus).

This particular approach turned already out to be a very effective tool since a couple of months (2 documents out) and with this I see no problem in moving forward and reaching consensus also on the specification level.

In the initial cycle we did not used this 'tool' trying always to reach a full consensus of all and that was hard.

Nevertheless, let's not forget that we produced two documents and increased the mutual understanding.

Thanks for this Andre, Morris

...

-- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- -- Von: andremerzky@gmail.com [mailto:andremerzky@gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Andre Merzky -- Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. November 2010 19:01 -- An: Oxana Smirnova -- Cc: Riedel, Morris; pgi-wg -- Betreff: Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for -- requirements -- -- Hi all, -- -- On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Oxana Smirnova<oxana.smirnova@hep.lu.se> wrote: -- > 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? -- -- purely from the OGF procedure perspective, the process would be to -- -- - draft an agenda update, -- - get rough consensus on that update via the mailing list (one week -- final call) -- - either submit that update to your area director, -- - or submit it online to OGF's living charter (which will trigger -- the AD as well). -- -- The update will then be reviewed by the GFSG, and usually accepted if -- it is within OGF's mission statement. -- -- -- 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. "Rough consensus - running code" -- is the motto for OGF (borrowed from IETF, -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus). -- -- Hope that helps, -- -- Andre. -- -- -- -- -- -- > 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@ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] Im Auftrag -- >>> von Oxana Smirnova -- >>> -- Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. November 2010 17:32 -- >>> -- An: pgi-wg@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 -- > -- > _______________________________________________ -- > Pgi-wg mailing list -- > Pgi-wg@ogf.org -- > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg -- > -- > -- -- -- -- -- -- Nothing is ever easy...