August 2006 - tsc - lists.ogf.org

Re: [Tsc] Fwd: Thoughts on the OGF Technical Direction and Roadmap Document
by Chris Kantarjiev 17 Aug '06

17 Aug '06

[this is a resend, without the attachment, which apparently made the message large enough that the OGF mail system put it into limbo.] Ian, I think that we're actually in basic agreement! Some comments in line: > That said, I don't see why, if a group emerges "bottom up" with a > well-argued and technically strong case for a specification that isn't in > the roadmap, we would want to forbid that group from forming. E.g., maybe > some comes forward and says that we need to define this particular XAMCL > profile, so that we can share this particular set of policies. I doubt > that's in the roadmap, but it could well be important to some group. I agree. We should be aware that the strategy roadmap is going to be out of date the moment it is published, if not before. It will/should encompass the "known" tactical issues, but it can't pretend to encompass the unknowns. If it is *sooo* broad as to do so, it will be too broad to be useful. Put another way: I don't think that the output of the TSC is going to be, or should be, at all tactical in scope. Strategy is our middle name. It's entirely possible that we should first be figuring out what we think a roadmap *is*, and running that idea by the board, before spending a lot of time building one that they don't want. I'm pretty sure that the board is not looking for an OGSA roadmap. It might be looking for a roadmap of roadmaps. The 'grid universe' encompasses multiple communities and multiple vendors - we have to live with multiple approaches. How do we produce a strategy that is general enough to encompass them all, or at least all the ones that are represented in the OGF membership, without it being so vague that it is useless? I don't know. But I think we need to figure it out as the first task. > You express some concerns about OGSA. I think these are important issues to > discuss. However, before we do so, we need to be clear about what we mean > by the term. Is OGSA: > > a) A grand, top-down, boil-the-ocean attempt to define all possible service > interfaces needed in current and future grids? Or: > > b) A principled approach to define, in an incremental but consistent > manner, simple Web Services-based interfaces for the most important things > that people need to do in grids, like job submission and management, data > movement, etc.? > > We've debated this in the past, and I guess you can tell which side I come > down on (-:. I firmly believe that (b) is the approach we have to pursue. I > also note that it is the approach that we are pursuing in practice. I have a couple of thoughts about this. First: the fact that some people consider OGSA as a "boil the ocean" solution indicates that there's a pretty serious image problem. That might also make it something that can be positioned as strategic, rather than tactical :-) Second: if it's an attempt to define interfaces, then it's not getting the job done. Alan Yoder might have put it best at the last GGF: "If you gave me a million dollars to go and implement the OGSA data management standards, I wouldn't know what to build." I don't think it's an issue of web services vs. not web services. It's an issue of crisp definitions that lead to implementations in the next 12-18 months. That's what I hear the board, and thus presumably the members, asking for. And I'll say it again: setting a goal to build real operational grids using OGSA based components is not a valuable strategic goal for OGF. Not that OGSA is bad ... but OGF doesn't exist solely for OGSA. Statements along these lines lead to the impression that OGSA is a "boil the ocean" solution. And, by the way, I think that the TSC isn't the right place to define the OGSA roadmap :-) So. As an example of a technology roadmap, I'll offer the SNIA storage roadmap. I'm not convinced that it's a perfect roadmap, or the right roadmap, but it's a concrete example that we can look at critically. Unfortunately, it has not been released publicly. Since OGF and SNIA are partners, we should be able to get a copy of the draft - I'll work on that. I've attached a public presentation about the roadmap, and offer the following quote from the introduction: "The roadmap is intended to help the SNIA achieve two primary objectives: 1. Becoming the trusted authority on information related to storage; and 2. Advancing adoption of storage networks as complete and trusted solutions." What might we do that has similar goals? Mark, since you're listening in, would the board have us meet similar goals, or something different? Best, chris

3 2

going to the moon vs boiling the ocean
by Chris Kantarjiev 16 Aug '06

16 Aug '06

It seems to me that saying "The Open Grid Forum should commit all its available resources to the goal, that before this decade is out, commercial and academic organizations will build real operational grids using OGSA based components!" is like President Kennedy saying that we should go to the moon using multi-stage rockets that used JP-5 fuel and core memory guidance computers. Again, I'm not trying to knock OGSA, but I'm trying to set the right level for this discussion and the document. The goal statement of the organization should not include a specific technology solution. The terms "grid" and "grid computing" have a long, storied, and somewhat checkered past. The term has gotten quite muddy. Articles like http://weblog.infoworld.com/gridmeter/archives/2006/07/a_broader_scope.html draw this in sharp relief. We should take advantage of this inflection point to recapture the mindshare around "grid", by setting and stating goals crisply. I assert that grid computing is utility computing, on a range of hardware, in a range of architectures - it's not just HPC computing, stealing cycles from one another's supercomputers any more. (Nor is it, really, about cycle recovery from desktops or embarrassingly parallel applications like SETI@Home. Those are interesting, they got the term out into the marketplace of ideas, but we're not going to be developing organizational strategy around those.) Grid computing is about these things: - infrastructure virtualization - resource pooling & sharing - self monitoring & improvement - dynamic resource provisioning - highest quality of service OGF's goals and the TSC's strategic roadmap need to capture all this. Well, *I* think so. I'd be interested to know what others think. Best, chris

1 0

Re: [Tsc] Fwd: Thoughts on the OGF Technical Direction and Roadmap Document
by Chris Kantarjiev 16 Aug '06

16 Aug '06

Ian, I think that we're actually in basic agreement! Some comments in line: > That said, I don't see why, if a group emerges "bottom up" with a > well-argued and technically strong case for a specification that isn't in > the roadmap, we would want to forbid that group from forming. E.g., maybe > some comes forward and says that we need to define this particular XAMCL > profile, so that we can share this particular set of policies. I doubt > that's in the roadmap, but it could well be important to some group. I agree. We should be aware that the strategy roadmap is going to be out of date the moment it is published, if not before. It will/should encompass the "known" tactical issues, but it can't pretend to encompass the unknowns. If it is *sooo* broad as to do so, it will be too broad to be useful. Put another way: I don't think that the output of the TSC is going to be, or should be, at all tactical in scope. Strategy is our middle name. It's entirely possible that we should first be figuring out what we think a roadmap *is*, and running that idea by the board, before spending a lot of time building one that they don't want. I'm pretty sure that the board is not looking for an OGSA roadmap. It might be looking for a roadmap of roadmaps. The 'grid universe' encompasses multiple communities and multiple vendors - we have to live with multiple approaches. How do we produce a strategy that is general enough to encompass them all, or at least all the ones that are represented in the OGF membership, without it being so vague that it is useless? I don't know. But I think we need to figure it out as the first task. > You express some concerns about OGSA. I think these are important issues to > discuss. However, before we do so, we need to be clear about what we mean > by the term. Is OGSA: > > a) A grand, top-down, boil-the-ocean attempt to define all possible service > interfaces needed in current and future grids? Or: > > b) A principled approach to define, in an incremental but consistent > manner, simple Web Services-based interfaces for the most important things > that people need to do in grids, like job submission and management, data > movement, etc.? > > We've debated this in the past, and I guess you can tell which side I come > down on (-:. I firmly believe that (b) is the approach we have to pursue. I > also note that it is the approach that we are pursuing in practice. I have a couple of thoughts about this. First: the fact that some people consider OGSA as a "boil the ocean" solution indicates that there's a pretty serious image problem. That might also make it something that can be positioned as strategic, rather than tactical :-) Second: if it's an attempt to define interfaces, then it's not getting the job done. Alan Yoder might have put it best at the last GGF: "If you gave me a million dollars to go and implement the OGSA data management standards, I wouldn't know what to build." I don't think it's an issue of web services vs. not web services. It's an issue of crisp definitions that lead to implementations in the next 12-18 months. That's what I hear the board, and thus presumably the members, asking for. And I'll say it again: setting a goal to build real operational grids using OGSA based components is not a valuable strategic goal for OGF. Not that OGSA is bad ... but OGF doesn't exist solely for OGSA. Statements along these lines lead to the impression that OGSA is a "boil the ocean" solution. And, by the way, I think that the TSC isn't the right place to define the OGSA roadmap :-) So. As an example of a technology roadmap, I'll offer the SNIA storage roadmap. I'm not convinced that it's a perfect roadmap, or the right roadmap, but it's a concrete example that we can look at critically. Unfortunately, it has not been released publicly. Since OGF and SNIA are partners, we should be able to get a copy of the draft - I'll work on that. I've attached a public presentation about the roadmap, and offer the following quote from the introduction: "The roadmap is intended to help the SNIA achieve two primary objectives: 1. Becoming the trusted authority on information related to storage; and 2. Advancing adoption of storage networks as complete and trusted solutions." What might we do that has similar goals? Mark, since you're listening in, would the board have us meet similar goals, or something different? Best, chris

1 0

FW: Fwd: Labeling OGSA as a 'flag ship architecture
by Linesch, Mark 15 Aug '06

15 Aug '06

David, I want to clarify something that Tony indicated in his email. NOTHING should be "off the table" for the TSC - NOTHING. We are past the merger and are now a new organization. I think we are also past the time for fuzzy clarity and "whatever sticks to the wall". This is the time for the TSC to help bring things together and align the community on a direction. Let me be clear.. WHEN IN DOUBT, DO WHAT MAKES SENSE, REGARDLESS OF THE PAST ...however ... Confucius say "aligning with key stakeholders for success is important in the future :-)" Tony makes some good points in his email - stuffing OGSA down anyone's throat is counterproductive and perceived to be problematic. However, we are a new organization and the TSC should feel empowered to lead, align and recommend the technical path forward! Thanks, Mark Mark Linesch: Open Grid Forum (OGF): Hewlett Packard 281-514-0322 (Tel): 281-414-7082 (Cell) mark.linesch(a)hp.com : linesch(a)ogf.org -----Original Message----- From: tsc-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:tsc-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of David Snelling Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:04 PM To: TSC Subject: [Tsc] Fwd: Labeling OGSA as a 'flag ship architecture Folks, This mail was sent to me privately, but I feel it highlights one of several issues we all already know form part of our work. We have a number of options wrt how to address this issue, and we need to choose one. Talk to you on Thursday. Begin forwarded message: > From: Tony DiCenzo <tony.dicenzo(a)oracle.com> > Date: 8 August 2006 17:01:11 GMT-07:00 > To: David Snelling <David.Snelling(a)uk.fujitsu.com> > Cc: Kantarjiev CHRISTOPHER A <CHRIS.KANTARJIEV(a)oracle.com> > Subject: Re: Labeling OGSA as a 'flag ship architecture > Reply-To: tony.dicenzo(a)oracle.com > > Dave, > > Chris Kantarjiev shared the minutes of the TSG meeting with me. I'm > delighted that it's moving forward in a timely fashion and I think > you are making good decisions in guiding it. > > But I do have one concern, that being the idea of labeling OGSA a > 'flag ship architecture'. > > It's clear OGSA is a primary architecture and a major reason many > members are involved. No issue with that. There are many former > members of BOTh EGA and GGF who are interested in where OGSA goes, > and who are interested in understanding the relationship of OGSA to > the EGA reference Model and to emerging standard. But there are > those who are not employing it and would have major issues with it > being designated as the 'Flag ship' architecture, even if a few > other architectures were focused on. To say the emotions run hot is > an understatement. > > I think you need to know that at the very first meeting of the GGF > and EGA to discuss the merger Mark pre-empted a major issue when he > said 'We're aware that EGA doesn't OGSA thrown down it's throat, > and we will take that off the table'. He went on to say that he > believed there were GGF members as well as EGA members who were not > OGSA supporters. They were not opposed to OGSA per se, but not > focused on adopting it as their architecture. > > The understanding inherent in the merger agreement, while not > written down specifically, is that OGSA would not be positioned as > the flag ship architecture. Doing so would be a slap in the face > and a total move away from the merger agreement. > > I'm sure you will discuss this with Mark. I encourage you to do so. > You might also want to discuss it with John Tollefsrud, Jay Unger, > and others who were on the merger team. I also encourage you to > help the TSG understand that OGSA can remain a primary > architectural focus without drawing a line in the sand that I > expect would lead to members not renewing their memberships. > > I strongly recommend moving away from that idea. > > Very best regards, > > Tony > _______________________________________ > Tony Di Cenzo > Director Standards Strategy and Architecture > Corporate Architecture Group > Oracle > 500 Oracle Parkway > Mailstop 5op312 > Redwood Shores, CA 94065 > Tel: 650.506.2090 > Cell: 650.773.6046 > Fax: 650.506.7218 > Email: Tony.DiCenzo(a)Oracle.com <mailto:Tony.DiCenzo@Oracle.com> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Snelling [mailto:David.Snelling@uk.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 5:41 AM > To: David Snelling; Steven Newhouse; Andre Merzky; Geoffrey Fox; > Robert > Fogel; Hanoch Eiron; Ian Foster; Chris Kantarjiev; Tom Maguire; Joel > Replogle > Subject: Welcome to the OGF Technical Strategy Committee > > > Folks, > > Welcome aboard. This is the first official communication of the Open > Grid Forum's Technical Strategy Committee. > > Introductions: > > Chair: David Snelling > Standards Representative: Steven Newhouse > Operations Representative: Andre Merzky > Research Representative: Geoffery Fox > Enterprise Representative: Robert Fogel > Marketing Representative: Hanoch Eiron > At large 1: Ian Foster > At large 2: Chris Kantarjiev > At large 3: Tom Maguire > Facilitator: Joel Replogle > > Where we stand: > > This membership still needs official sanction by the board, but we > need to start work and will assume that things will proceed without > complications. Joel, will be creating a mailing list for us to use. > This list will be closed for both posting and receiving, but will be > archived publicly. If anybody has a problem with this strategy, > please let me know. > > What we need to do: > > There are a lot of tasks we could pick up, but one is rather urgent > and important. We need to create a Draft Technical Strategy and > Roadmap for the Open Grid Forum. This document would be for both > internal steering and external consumption. As these two uses are > somewhat at odds, I would propose that we aim to write the steering > document and let our marketing machine filter it for public > consumption. > > Draft Technical Strategy and Roadmap Document: > > There are several bits of background information associated with the > development of this document. The first is a task (called simply the > "Standards Project") initiated by Mark and a number of the GFAC to > attempt to understand where we are with respect to a number of issues > and questions surrounding the Open Grid Services Architecture, the > convergence of Standards for stateful Web Services, etc.. The latest > draft of this plan is attached. It includes a number of actions, one > of which is the inauguration of this committee. > > One of the other steps in the Standards Project was executing a > survey of the community on these issues. I have attached the slide > deck containing the main outputs. The key points I pull from these > results are the following: > > - The community is willing to support a Flag Ship Architecture, as > long as we remain open to other ideas. > - OGSA is well aligned with what people consider the top priority > specifications. > > Note these conclusions are not without controversy, but to quote Jay > Unger, "It is only a strategy if half the people disagree!" > > In the Standards Council F2F a week and a half ago, we discussed the > need for a Technical Strategy and Roadmap Document, so some people > have already had input in to the attached outline. Also, the week > before that the OGF management committee met with the OGSA leadership > to refine these ideas. > > Document Outline (Very Drafty): > > From Wikipedia: A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to > achieve a particular goal, as differentiated from tactics or > immediate actions with resources at hand. > > Therefore, we (OGF) need a goal before we can get started. As a > result of discussions in the above meetings, we developed a simple > goal, as it turns out modeled on Kennedy's Moon Shot speech. The Goal > I propose we start with is therefore: > > The Open Grid Froum should commit all its available resources > to the goal, that before this decade is out, commercial and academic > organizations will build real operational grids using OGSA based > components! > > The attached HTML file contains some more content and a draft outline > of the proposed strategy document. [NB: This HTML file was exported > from a mind mapping tool I am using and would recommend to you all, > see freemind.sourceforge.net] > > I will need lots of help turning this outline into a document. > > Other useful links: > > The OGSA current roadmap document: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/ > doc13558?nav=1 > The living charter web site (a kind of roadmap for the whole > organization): Joel will tell us where this is, as I can't find the > link any more. > > > Meetings: > > I would like to avoid F2F meetings as much as possible, but we have > work to do and it is holiday season all the way up to GridWorld. > Therefore, the first telecon will be at 14:00 GMT (15:00 BST; 10:00 > EDT) on Thursday September 17th. The pass code is 2051278 and a list > of numbers is attached. I am on holiday for the next week and a half, > but will occasionally look at email. > > Actions: > > Joel: Set up the mailing list based on this email. > All: Come up to speed on the content of this mail and its attachments. > Anyone: Volunteer to wordsmith sections of the document. > Joel: Post the link to all living charter information. > All: Dial in to the call on September 17th. > > Anyway, sorry for the initial workload, I hope it will tail off a bit > once we get started. > > -- > > Take care: > > Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe > Hayes Park Central > Hayes End Road > Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE > > +44-208-606-4649 (Office) > +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) > +44-7768-807526 (Mobile) > > > -- Take care: Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE +44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile) _______________________________________________ Tsc mailing list Tsc(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc

1 0

Fwd: Labeling OGSA as a 'flag ship architecture
by David Snelling 15 Aug '06

15 Aug '06

Folks, This mail was sent to me privately, but I feel it highlights one of several issues we all already know form part of our work. We have a number of options wrt how to address this issue, and we need to choose one. Talk to you on Thursday. Begin forwarded message: > From: Tony DiCenzo <tony.dicenzo(a)oracle.com> > Date: 8 August 2006 17:01:11 GMT-07:00 > To: David Snelling <David.Snelling(a)uk.fujitsu.com> > Cc: Kantarjiev CHRISTOPHER A <CHRIS.KANTARJIEV(a)oracle.com> > Subject: Re: Labeling OGSA as a 'flag ship architecture > Reply-To: tony.dicenzo(a)oracle.com > > Dave, > > Chris Kantarjiev shared the minutes of the TSG meeting with me. I'm > delighted that it's moving forward in a timely fashion and I think > you are making good decisions in guiding it. > > But I do have one concern, that being the idea of labeling OGSA a > 'flag ship architecture'. > > It's clear OGSA is a primary architecture and a major reason many > members are involved. No issue with that. There are many former > members of BOTh EGA and GGF who are interested in where OGSA goes, > and who are interested in understanding the relationship of OGSA to > the EGA reference Model and to emerging standard. But there are > those who are not employing it and would have major issues with it > being designated as the 'Flag ship' architecture, even if a few > other architectures were focused on. To say the emotions run hot is > an understatement. > > I think you need to know that at the very first meeting of the GGF > and EGA to discuss the merger Mark pre-empted a major issue when he > said 'We're aware that EGA doesn't OGSA thrown down it's throat, > and we will take that off the table'. He went on to say that he > believed there were GGF members as well as EGA members who were not > OGSA supporters. They were not opposed to OGSA per se, but not > focused on adopting it as their architecture. > > The understanding inherent in the merger agreement, while not > written down specifically, is that OGSA would not be positioned as > the flag ship architecture. Doing so would be a slap in the face > and a total move away from the merger agreement. > > I'm sure you will discuss this with Mark. I encourage you to do so. > You might also want to discuss it with John Tollefsrud, Jay Unger, > and others who were on the merger team. I also encourage you to > help the TSG understand that OGSA can remain a primary > architectural focus without drawing a line in the sand that I > expect would lead to members not renewing their memberships. > > I strongly recommend moving away from that idea. > > Very best regards, > > Tony > _______________________________________ > Tony Di Cenzo > Director Standards Strategy and Architecture > Corporate Architecture Group > Oracle > 500 Oracle Parkway > Mailstop 5op312 > Redwood Shores, CA 94065 > Tel: 650.506.2090 > Cell: 650.773.6046 > Fax: 650.506.7218 > Email: Tony.DiCenzo(a)Oracle.com <mailto:Tony.DiCenzo@Oracle.com> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Snelling [mailto:David.Snelling@uk.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 5:41 AM > To: David Snelling; Steven Newhouse; Andre Merzky; Geoffrey Fox; > Robert > Fogel; Hanoch Eiron; Ian Foster; Chris Kantarjiev; Tom Maguire; Joel > Replogle > Subject: Welcome to the OGF Technical Strategy Committee > > > Folks, > > Welcome aboard. This is the first official communication of the Open > Grid Forum's Technical Strategy Committee. > > Introductions: > > Chair: David Snelling > Standards Representative: Steven Newhouse > Operations Representative: Andre Merzky > Research Representative: Geoffery Fox > Enterprise Representative: Robert Fogel > Marketing Representative: Hanoch Eiron > At large 1: Ian Foster > At large 2: Chris Kantarjiev > At large 3: Tom Maguire > Facilitator: Joel Replogle > > Where we stand: > > This membership still needs official sanction by the board, but we > need to start work and will assume that things will proceed without > complications. Joel, will be creating a mailing list for us to use. > This list will be closed for both posting and receiving, but will be > archived publicly. If anybody has a problem with this strategy, > please let me know. > > What we need to do: > > There are a lot of tasks we could pick up, but one is rather urgent > and important. We need to create a Draft Technical Strategy and > Roadmap for the Open Grid Forum. This document would be for both > internal steering and external consumption. As these two uses are > somewhat at odds, I would propose that we aim to write the steering > document and let our marketing machine filter it for public > consumption. > > Draft Technical Strategy and Roadmap Document: > > There are several bits of background information associated with the > development of this document. The first is a task (called simply the > "Standards Project") initiated by Mark and a number of the GFAC to > attempt to understand where we are with respect to a number of issues > and questions surrounding the Open Grid Services Architecture, the > convergence of Standards for stateful Web Services, etc.. The latest > draft of this plan is attached. It includes a number of actions, one > of which is the inauguration of this committee. > > One of the other steps in the Standards Project was executing a > survey of the community on these issues. I have attached the slide > deck containing the main outputs. The key points I pull from these > results are the following: > > - The community is willing to support a Flag Ship Architecture, as > long as we remain open to other ideas. > - OGSA is well aligned with what people consider the top priority > specifications. > > Note these conclusions are not without controversy, but to quote Jay > Unger, "It is only a strategy if half the people disagree!" > > In the Standards Council F2F a week and a half ago, we discussed the > need for a Technical Strategy and Roadmap Document, so some people > have already had input in to the attached outline. Also, the week > before that the OGF management committee met with the OGSA leadership > to refine these ideas. > > Document Outline (Very Drafty): > > From Wikipedia: A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to > achieve a particular goal, as differentiated from tactics or > immediate actions with resources at hand. > > Therefore, we (OGF) need a goal before we can get started. As a > result of discussions in the above meetings, we developed a simple > goal, as it turns out modeled on Kennedy's Moon Shot speech. The Goal > I propose we start with is therefore: > > The Open Grid Froum should commit all its available resources > to the goal, that before this decade is out, commercial and academic > organizations will build real operational grids using OGSA based > components! > > The attached HTML file contains some more content and a draft outline > of the proposed strategy document. [NB: This HTML file was exported > from a mind mapping tool I am using and would recommend to you all, > see freemind.sourceforge.net] > > I will need lots of help turning this outline into a document. > > Other useful links: > > The OGSA current roadmap document: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/ > doc13558?nav=1 > The living charter web site (a kind of roadmap for the whole > organization): Joel will tell us where this is, as I can't find the > link any more. > > > Meetings: > > I would like to avoid F2F meetings as much as possible, but we have > work to do and it is holiday season all the way up to GridWorld. > Therefore, the first telecon will be at 14:00 GMT (15:00 BST; 10:00 > EDT) on Thursday September 17th. The pass code is 2051278 and a list > of numbers is attached. I am on holiday for the next week and a half, > but will occasionally look at email. > > Actions: > > Joel: Set up the mailing list based on this email. > All: Come up to speed on the content of this mail and its attachments. > Anyone: Volunteer to wordsmith sections of the document. > Joel: Post the link to all living charter information. > All: Dial in to the call on September 17th. > > Anyway, sorry for the initial workload, I hope it will tail off a bit > once we get started. > > -- > > Take care: > > Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe > Hayes Park Central > Hayes End Road > Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE > > +44-208-606-4649 (Office) > +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) > +44-7768-807526 (Mobile) > > > -- Take care: Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE +44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile)

1 0

Reminder: TSC call Thursday, 17 August
by Joel Replogle 15 Aug '06

15 Aug '06

All - this is a reminder that the first Technical Strategy Committee call will be this Thursday, 17 August at 9:00 CDT (14:00 GMT). Toll-free numbers (many more countries were on Dave's initial email): Netherlands 0800 0223422 United Kingdom 0808 1005145 USA 866-248-5984 Passcode: 2051278 Thanks, Joel ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- Joel Replogle - Manager of Standards, Global Grid Forum replogle(a)ggf.org http://www.ggf.org

1 0

Fwd: Thoughts on the OGF Technical Direction and Roadmap Document
by David Snelling 15 Aug '06

15 Aug '06

Folks, Some thoughts from our leader of our little project Begin forwarded message: > From: "Linesch, Mark" <mark.linesch(a)hp.com> > Date: 3 August 2006 21:39:18 BDT > To: "David Snelling" <d.snelling(a)fle.fujitsu.com>, "David Snelling" > <Dave(a)ThePlateau.com> > Cc: <scrumb(a)ggf.org> > Subject: Thoughts on the OGF Technical Direction and Roadmap Document > > Dave, > > I promised you a few thoughts to think about during vacation ;-) > See attached and hope you have a great and productive time off! > > Mark > Mark Linesch: Open Grid Forum (OGF): Hewlett Packard > 281-514-0322 (Tel): 281-414-7082 (Cell) mark.linesch(a)hp.com : > linesch(a)ogf.org > > > -- Take care: Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE +44-208-606-4649 (Office) +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) +44-7768-807526 (Mobile)

4 5