Re: [Pgi-wg] No PGI TelCon today
Hi Morris,
That might be the case, but take into account that it's vacation time, at least in Europe - and the rather more important group argument should be that there are not enough significant 'voices' today to make decisions or even meaningful progress.
Sure... but there was no call on the mailing list to see if anyone would be available for a call, or if there was anyone else available who could lead the call. The WG chairs do not have to lead every call, they are certainly expected to drive progress within the group.
There is no point to have an agreement w/o gLite, UNICORE, ARC.
While I agree with this... (with my EGEE hat on) there are also other groups involved in this WG and it is VERY worrying (with my OGF hat on) that a WG chair should make a statement that only a particular technologies have an 'important' voice in an activity. I'm sure this was a mistake...
If this group is really following a collaborative process, we should have a voice from everybody who is interested - and when we not wait for one or more interested voices in terms of 'just-going-forward- with-meaningless-decisions' - that would be not a WIN/WIN game in the end that we want to achieve in the group.
Which it seems to be from this statement... Regards, Steven
Morris, I have to agree with Steven, whilst it is important that you and Balazs as chairs drive progress within the groups as the people responsible to fulfilling the groups deliverables, it is also important that the whole group is aware of the decision to cancel and if it wants can still hold a meeting without you present. It is also the case that people from I would imagine other middleware production efforts are still interested, for example OMII and GENESIS? I am interested that not a single person from UNICORE, gLITE or ARC are able to attend? If this is the case then OGF should raise this matter with their leadership to find out why etc. David On 29/07/2009 12:29, "Steven Newhouse" <Steven.Newhouse@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi Morris,
That might be the case, but take into account that it's vacation time, at least in Europe - and the rather more important group argument should be that there are not enough significant 'voices' today to make decisions or even meaningful progress.
Sure... but there was no call on the mailing list to see if anyone would be available for a call, or if there was anyone else available who could lead the call. The WG chairs do not have to lead every call, they are certainly expected to drive progress within the group.
There is no point to have an agreement w/o gLite, UNICORE, ARC.
While I agree with this... (with my EGEE hat on) there are also other groups involved in this WG and it is VERY worrying (with my OGF hat on) that a WG chair should make a statement that only a particular technologies have an 'important' voice in an activity.
I'm sure this was a mistake...
If this group is really following a collaborative process, we should have a voice from everybody who is interested - and when we not wait for one or more interested voices in terms of 'just-going-forward- with-meaningless-decisions' - that would be not a WIN/WIN game in the end that we want to achieve in the group.
Which it seems to be from this statement...
Regards,
Steven _______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
Hi David, All, Yes, I certainly would be interested if the call goes ahead. Regards Steve David Wallom wrote:
Morris,
I have to agree with Steven, whilst it is important that you and Balazs as chairs drive progress within the groups as the people responsible to fulfilling the groups deliverables, it is also important that the whole group is aware of the decision to cancel and if it wants can still hold a meeting without you present. It is also the case that people from I would imagine other middleware production efforts are still interested, for example OMII and GENESIS?
I am interested that not a single person from UNICORE, gLITE or ARC are able to attend? If this is the case then OGF should raise this matter with their leadership to find out why etc.
David
On 29/07/2009 12:29, "Steven Newhouse" <Steven.Newhouse@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi Morris,
That might be the case, but take into account that it's vacation time, at least in Europe - and the rather more important group argument should be that there are not enough significant 'voices' today to make decisions or even meaningful progress. Sure... but there was no call on the mailing list to see if anyone would be available for a call, or if there was anyone else available who could lead the call. The WG chairs do not have to lead every call, they are certainly expected to drive progress within the group.
There is no point to have an agreement w/o gLite, UNICORE, ARC. While I agree with this... (with my EGEE hat on) there are also other groups involved in this WG and it is VERY worrying (with my OGF hat on) that a WG chair should make a statement that only a particular technologies have an 'important' voice in an activity.
I'm sure this was a mistake...
If this group is really following a collaborative process, we should have a voice from everybody who is interested - and when we not wait for one or more interested voices in terms of 'just-going-forward- with-meaningless-decisions' - that would be not a WIN/WIN game in the end that we want to achieve in the group. Which it seems to be from this statement...
Regards,
Steven _______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
-- Dr Stephen Crouch, Software Architect, OMII-UK, School of Electronics and Computer Science, Room 4067, Level 4, Building 32, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 8787 EMail: s.crouch@omii.ac.uk Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 3045 WWW: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~stc
Hi, [snip]
I am interested that not a single person from UNICORE, gLITE or ARC are able to attend? If this is the case then OGF should raise this matter with their leadership to find out why etc.
Of course co-chairs are not the only representatives of ARC, gLite and UNICORE in PGI-WG. Absence of any of them does not (should not) mean absence of the respective m/w representative. I personally would propose to keep the schedule, and if a chair-person is not available, they should appoint a deputy, on a case by case basis, to lead the call and take notes of decisions and actions. As of PGI importance for the 3 middlewares listed above - it's no exaggeration to say that the PGI-WG outcome is of vital importance for them, and quite obviously this is why they initiated this acivity. I am confident they could have converged on a common set of specifications even without OGF umbrella. The very fact that this initiative was brought into OGF shows its openness. Cheers, Oxana P.S. is it common for OGF leadership to monitor WG activities _that_ closely, or is it just a coincidence that PGI has so many high-ranking OGF people inside?
P.S. is it common for OGF leadership to monitor WG activities _that_ closely, or is it just a coincidence that PGI has so many high-ranking OGF people inside? Both Steve N and I were involved in getting the group setup following discussion with Morris and Andrew Grimshaw is of course also your area director, so just luck :) Outside of OGF I and Technical director for the UK production grid so this is very interesting since we have to interface directly with US infrastructures as well as EU so I would attend anyway.
David
Balazs, Morris and all members of OGF PGI, I completely agree with Oxana : - For a Working Group to achieve success, there must always be someone active to gather stakeholders, chair meetings, propose directions and decisions, and gather consensus. So OGF PGI needs one leader, and possibly a deputy or a few, respected as authorities both in PGI and in their respective projects. - The occasional absence of all co-chairs should NOT block daily work, but 1 representative for each of ARC, gLite and Unicore is necessary to adopt directions and decisions. Besides, scheduled telephone conferences using +9900827049931906 are NOT the only way to progress inside OGF PGI : - Anyone can review existing input documents, drafts or Wiki pages, and send comments, remarks or suggestions by mail, - Members can directly improve existing input documents, drafts or Wiki pages, create new ones, and notify the group by mail, - At any time, anyone can organize and perform a conference with the appropriate stakeholders of his choice on a given subject, using telephone, Skype, EVO, CC-IN2P3 MCU, ... In particular, it is very useful that each participant is able to see the list of participants and who is the current participant speaking. This featured is offered by : - The Automated audioconferencing server of CERN, - Skype (version 4.1 for Windows and version 2.8 for Mac OS X), which also permit screen sharing (see my mail dated 27 July 2009), - EVO at http://evo.caltech.edu/evoGate/ Finally, I propose that every member browses, compares, reviews and improves following documents and Wiki pages of OGF PGI : Vocabulary ---------- - Wiki page at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.pgi-wg/wiki/Vocabula... Security -------- - Matrix at the bottom of the Wiki page at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.pgi-wg/wiki/HomePage - 'PGI Security Model' at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15584?nav=1 Execution Service ----------------- - Wiki page at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.pgi-wg/wiki/GES - 'Slides about execution service' at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15593?nav=1 - 'PGI Execution Service Overview' at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15735?nav=1 - 'Comments on the GES Strawman' at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15633?nav=1 (I can NOT find the original GES Strawman at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15590?nav=1 anymore) - 'GES Realization via Existing Specifications' at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15630?nav=1 Job State Model --------------- - 'PGI Single Job State Model - Textual description' at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15697?nav=1 - 'PGI Single Job State Model (available as ZARGO, XMI and PNG)' available under 6 formats at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15655?nav=1 Best regards. ----------------------------------------------------- Etienne URBAH LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS Bat 200 91898 ORSAY France Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87 Skype: etienne.urbah Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27 mailto:urbah@lal.in2p3.fr ----------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Oxana Smirnova wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
I am interested that not a single person from UNICORE, gLITE or ARC are able to attend? If this is the case then OGF should raise this matter with their leadership to find out why etc.
Of course co-chairs are not the only representatives of ARC, gLite and UNICORE in PGI-WG. Absence of any of them does not (should not) mean absence of the respective m/w representative.
I personally would propose to keep the schedule, and if a chair-person is not available, they should appoint a deputy, on a case by case basis, to lead the call and take notes of decisions and actions.
As of PGI importance for the 3 middlewares listed above - it's no exaggeration to say that the PGI-WG outcome is of vital importance for them, and quite obviously this is why they initiated this acivity. I am confident they could have converged on a common set of specifications even without OGF umbrella. The very fact that this initiative was brought into OGF shows its openness.
Cheers, Oxana
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Oxana Smirnova wrote:
Hi all,
as one of the "rest of the group", I can say that I'm not too comfortable with the idea of many co-chairs. I rather believe in one leader, and possibly a deputy or a few, whatever is the activity. But that's just me (and thousands of years of human society experience).
That said, I also agree with Morris that the most important part is not to count chair-persons, but to have proper representations from each interested party, such that not only this party has a say in PGI, but also that the PGI decisions are adopted by all the parties.
So, whatever is the number of chair-persons, they all must be respected as authorities both in PGI and in their respective projects.
Cheers, Oxana
Hi,
- I'm sure this was a mistake...
Well, recalling the significant participation in the group (e.g. phone calls, OGF sessions) from the last six month we clearly identified ARC, gLite, UNICORE, GENESIS, & EDGES (i.e. a certain amount of technologies) as the 'interested active parties' while other mw have been informed, but for whatever reason are so far not interested in the sense of active telcon participation on a weekly basis. This is of course, very independent from the chair business and the m/w technology that they represent since they are neutral - but as I said it's about the progress and agreement between the 'interested voices', otherwise we keep moving in circles or develop a standard that might be not broadly adopted. However, no doubt that PGI is interesting for others - and of course PGI does not only take ARC, gLite, UNICORE voices into account, but they represent currently 60% in the calls over a long period of time and they clearly have driven this activity first outside OGF and then with slower pace inside OGF. Nevertheless, any other voice showing active participation in PGI is very welcome and will be clearly taken into account. Let's stick to real facts in PGI and hope for better progress after the vacation period! Take care, Morris ------------------------------------------------------------ Morris Riedel SW - Engineer Distributed Systems and Grid Computing Division Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC) Forschungszentrum Juelich Wilhelm-Johnen-Str. 1 D - 52425 Juelich Germany Email: m.riedel@fz-juelich.de Info: http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/JSCPeople/riedel Phone: +49 2461 61 - 3651 Fax: +49 2461 61 - 6656 Skype: MorrisRiedel "We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity" Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender)
------Original Message----- -From: Steven Newhouse [mailto:Steven.Newhouse@cern.ch] -Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:29 PM -To: Riedel, Morris; pgi-wg@ogf.org -Subject: RE: [Pgi-wg] No PGI TelCon today - -Hi Morris, - -> That might be the case, but take into account that it's vacation time, -> at least in Europe - and the rather more important group argument -> should be that there are not enough significant 'voices' today to make -> decisions or even meaningful progress. - -Sure... but there was no call on the mailing list to see if anyone would be -available for a call, or if there was anyone else available who could lead the -call. The WG chairs do not have to lead every call, they are certainly -expected to drive progress within the group. - -> There is no point to have an agreement w/o gLite, UNICORE, ARC. - -While I agree with this... (with my EGEE hat on) there are also other groups -involved in this WG and it is VERY worrying (with my OGF hat on) that a -WG chair should make a statement that only a particular technologies have -an 'important' voice in an activity. - -I'm sure this was a mistake... - -> If this group is really following a collaborative process, we should -> have a voice from everybody who is interested - and when we not wait -> for one or more interested voices in terms of 'just-going-forward- -> with-meaningless-decisions' - that would be not a WIN/WIN game in the -> end that we want to achieve in the group. - -Which it seems to be from this statement... - -Regards, - -Steven
participants (6)
-
David Wallom -
Etienne URBAH -
Morris Riedel -
Oxana Smirnova -
Steve Crouch -
Steven Newhouse