Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for requirements
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@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
Hi,
-- Perhaps the group description needs to be updated, if management believes it contains controversial statements. -- What is the procedure for this?
That's right. Once we clear the path forward which specifications we seek to improve exactly we can update this group description. The procedure in turn is called a "living charter" that the chairs can update and communicate to the AD. The action from last week is to settle the path by getting more understanding of the specifications in question - then we take the update step of this group description. Take care, Morris
-- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- -- Von: Oxana Smirnova [mailto:oxana.smirnova@hep.lu.se] -- Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. November 2010 18:14 -- An: Riedel, Morris -- Cc: pgi-wg@ogf.org -- Betreff: Re: AW: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for -- requirements -- -- 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@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
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...
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...
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
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@ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] Im Auftrag von Balazs Konya -- Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. November 2010 13:46 -- 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 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@ogf.org -- http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
Hi Balasz, all, I don't want to bog you down into procedure technicalities, but I hope it helps to clarify some things. In general, we rarely had the need to apply strict procedures in any group - most are running (or stumbling) along on their own, and we (GFSG) are generally fine with that. There were exceptions though, and in general, a stalling group can profit from a clean procedural approach. On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Balazs Konya <balazs.konya@hep.lu.se> wrote:
For the vote, the group should define which group members have a voting right(s).
Every group member should have the right to vote. It is the *Open* Grid Forum :-) One could argue that this leaves the process open to gaming the vote: a project/group/... could send many people to the group meeting/mailing list, and thus influence the vote unduly. Well, that argument misses the purpose of the voting process. The general aim of the group is to reach rough consensus on the way forward. To decide if, and which, rough consensus is achieved is the task of the *chairs* of the group. Usually, chairs are able to determine that easily - but not so in situations like yours. A vote can *help the chairs* to find out if rough consensus exists, and which alternative it favors. Again: the vote is a tool chairs can employ to judge rough consensus. Thus, it is solely up to the chairs to interpret the results of the vote. That is a very simple safeguard against vote gaming. Remember: you all elected your chairs (by rough consensus ;-), so one can assume that there is a certain amount of trust that the chairs themself will fairly represent the groups interest.
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.
Again, I don't want to complicate matters further by heavy processes! But if you have questions about the processes OGF *recommends* (not 'enforces') for stalled groups, please let me know. Best, Andre. -- Nothing is ever easy...
participants (4)
-
Andre Merzky -
Balazs Konya -
Morris Riedel -
Oxana Smirnova