November 2011 - ur-wg - lists.ogf.org

Draft/suggestion for Storage Accounting Record (2010/10/07)
by Henrik Thostrup Jensen 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

Hi (this is send both to the ogf ur list and the emi sar list, sorry for duplicates). Jon and me happened to be at the same meeting this week, so we took out a couple of hours of the programme to create a draft suggestion for a storage accounting record. The suggestion is mainly meant as a way to kickoff the meeting in Brussels. 1. Discrete vs continuous First we discussed how storage differs from jobs in the sense that a job is a discrete unit whereas storage has a more continuous nature, where the usage more or less constantly varies (bytes used), but typically in relatively small scale. A storage record can however only describe something discrete, so the continuous nature of storage will have to be split into something discrete (similar to integration). Of course the granularity of this process should not be dictated be the standard. The first suggestions in then to have a start and an end time for the storage measurement where a measurement is taken. This allows to create per-day, per-hour resolution or something third, depending on the needs. Result: "StartTime" and "EndTime" element for describing the time interval for when the record is valid. Both of them are DateTime values. 2. What to measure The most obvious metric here is the amount of used space. Another metric is the amount of reserved space, i.e., space not taken by actual files/objects, but which cannot be used by other parties. A third metric, is the amount of space which is not allocated, and can be used. Initially we called this "free space", but this term is not exactly accurate as it refers more to a file system metric, which can be very different from what can actually be used due to quotas. Instead we choose to have an element describing how much unallocated space there is, i.e., how space one can be expected to be able to use. The actual free space is a metric, which can be very tricky to measure, and is typically only of interest to the storage system administrator. A secondary issue is how to report the numbers. We quickly decided on using bytes, as it is the fundamental unit, and saves us from deciding on weather to use 1000 or 1024 bytes as a base. Having multiple options (say KB, MB) for reporting would complicate the standard unnecessarily without any real benefits, so we suggest to keep it to bytes, and bytes only. This would also ensure that the number is always an integer (when using KB and up, floats could be used to be exact) and saves silly conversion routines when parsing the record. We briefly considered if reporting should be per file, but this was quite quickly shoot down, as it would make the records unreasonably large, without providing any real value. We did end with an element describing the number of files, which are using the space reported. Result: "UsedSpace", "ReservedSpace", "UnAllocatedSpace" metrics for describing how space is used, reserved, and available for use. Reserved and unallocated are probably not overlapping (as reserved space is technically used). The measurement is in bytes. "FileCount" for describing the number of files using the space. 3. Site and Storage Concepts The issue of how to describe the site and what storage the accounted data is stored is perhaps the most complex issue in defining this format. The discussion to achieve this was very non-linear, so I will just the describe the result: A site is considered a top level container for storage. The site name should globally unique (which probably means an FQDN). A storage system is an independent system on a site. A storage system partition is a part of storage system (similar to dCache pools) A storage type describes the storage type where the data is stored (disk, tape) None of these elements are mandatory (though we couldn't find a valid use case for a record without a site). E.g., is perfectly valid to just use site, site and storage type, or site and storage system. If multiple of the elements exist, they are considered to have hierarchical tree-like structure, i.e., site -> storage system -> storage system partition -> storage type. How to structure this is described in the "Record Structure" section. This allows a site with a simple setup to reporting just for the site, where as more complex installations can report per storage system, and how much is placed on tape and disk respectively for different storage systems. A single institution can easily report multiple sites, we do not interfere in this, but it is very likely that a site would have several storage element / systems and would like to able to aggregate it under a single site. Finally we also add the possibility for a storage class, which describes the class of storage accounted for. This could "precious", "deletable", "pinned", etc. It is not considered a part of the hierarchy described above. 4. Identity To describe who is using the space, an identity block or group, similar to the one in usage record must be supported. As with usage record it must be possible to specify both a local user name and global user identity. However the common case is likely to be a VO or a VO group, so being able to describe this is extremely important. Another use case is a local group at the site who owns the data (not everyone uses grid). How exactly to describe the virtual organization is not quite clear, but the following elements are needed as a base: VO name, VO issuer (DN of the VO issuer, somewhat VOMS specific), VO group, and VO role. There might be use cases for being able to have multiple VO blocks (though I suspect that will be messy). Resulting elements: VO Name VO Issuer VO group VO role Global User Identity Local User Name Local User Group All element are strings. The Global User Identity is to be considered global unique. Furthermore the combination of VO issuer and VO name should be globally unique. 5. Record Structure Having identified the identity block and the site/storage structure, we tried to find a good way to structure the individual records. We considered the possibility of having a tree structure in the storage accounting record, with the site, storage system, storage system partition, and storage type as possible levels in the tree. The leaves would then each have an identity and space usage block. This however would be quite complicated to construct and parsed, so a simpler - more flat - structure was quickly preferred. Here each record would maximum have a one site, storage system, storage system partition, and storage type (but all still optional). If a system would need to describe for multiple storage system / storage system partitions / storage type several records would have to be generated. This format should still be easy to aggregate together into site or storage system to get complete numbers. The flat format is also much easier to explain which probably means that it should be preferred. The two structure can describe exactly the same, so there is no limitation by choosing the flat format. 6. Record Overview Given the previous section, we can now present an overview of the elements in a storage accounting record. We reuse the recordId and createTime elements from the usage record standard (just the element names, not the namespaces). StorageAccountingRecord recordId (considered globally unique) createTime (timestamp when the record was created) StartTime (datetime value) EndTime (datetime value) Site StorageSystem StorageSystemPartition StorageType StorageClass IdentityBlock VO Block VO Name VO Issuer VO Group VO Role GlobalUserIdentity LocalUserName LocalGroupName UsedSpace ReservedSpace UnallocatedSpace FileCount The only enforced element is the recordId. 7. Name Issues Someone brought up that SAR is not the most fortunate name. It sounds a bit like SARS, and the phonetic sound is apparently close to a non-to-fortunate Hungarian word. We could consider SR (storage record) or SUR (storage usage record) This really doesn't matter. 8. Sharing Elements with Usage Record Standard Some of the elements are identical in both name and semantics to the ones in usage record. We do not suggest to share the elements as such (same namespace), as it would make the standard rely on the UR standard, and hence make it less self-contained. The UR standard is only used in a few systems, and is likely to be replaced with a new standard sometime. Furthermore the implementation gains of sharing the names are very small, if they even exist. We have definitely missed something in this, but we hope this can be a start for the discussion in Brussels. If you see problems or issues with this record please let us know. Best regards, Henrik Thostrup Jensen & Jon Kerr Nilsen

5 9

Minutes
by Mike Jones 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

Folk, Please find attached my less than perfect attempt at draft minutes from today's Skype meeting :-) Mike

5 5

Storage Accounting Discussion
by john.gordon＠stfc.ac.uk 29 Nov '11

29 Nov '11

I was actioned to provide some text for discussion about the issue I raised at the Lyon UR-WG meeting. I am having problems logging in to GridForge right now so I am sending this round so that people see it before today's call. I am travelling this afternoon so I will need to find wireless to use Skype unless someone can advise me on calling in from a physical phone. Regards, John Publishing Allocated Space: The current StAR proposal only records the 'usage' of storage - ie the space taken up by user files. I propose that it should also contain a field containing the total size of the storage area under consideration. To support this I draw a parallel with the cpu UR where both cpu and wallclock are recorded. The record thus shows the effect of a job on the resource - how long it occupied the node - and the actual usage it made during this time. In the storage case the corresponding data is the total disk space allocated to a user/VO/whatever and the amount filled by files. I believe there is a use case for charging for allocated space, not used space, so these data need collecting. One solution would be to have two flavours of StAR: one for total, one for used, not necessarily cut at the same time or frequency. I prefer an additional field in a single StAR just to ensure that measurements are correlated and accounting systems don't have to spend time/effort in matching them. -- Scanned by iCritical.

2 1

Biweekly UR-WG meeting 29.11.2011 @ 15:00 CET
by Andrea Cristofori 29 Nov '11

29 Nov '11

Dear all, Here is the agenda for tomorrow meeting: - Nomination of the new chairs is closed and the vote shall be casted - Comments on the info added on ValidDuration and TimeDuration (problems on reaching the gridforge page, comments can be discussed directly during the meeting in case the problem is not solved before the meeting) - Comments on the document type to be presented before next OGF - Organization of the work on the document (we will add a new wiki page were we will propose a list of fields with a short description. Everyone is invited to give comments on fields name, description, etc. The final document will try to armonize and consider those comments) - If gridforge page is reacheable we can start to discuss how to revise the charter for the group Andrea

3 3

Re: [UR-WG] move to new chairs process.
by Ralph Mueller-Pfefferkorn 28 Nov '11

28 Nov '11

Hi, I agree to the proposal. I believe both of them would do a great job as chair. Thus I have no preference about the order. Cheers, Ralph Morris Riedel wrote on 15.11.2011 17:01: > All, > > while rather observing the group than being actively involved: I agree with both proposed candidates. > > Both have shown active engagement and activities in the last couple of month! > > Take care, > Morris > >> -- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> -- Von: ur-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] Im Auftrag von john alan kennedy >> -- Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. November 2011 07:39 >> -- An: john.gordon(a)stfc.ac.uk >> -- Cc: ur-wg(a)ogf.org >> -- Betreff: Re: [UR-WG] move to new chairs process. >> -- >> -- Hi, >> -- >> -- I propose Andrea Cristofori and Second Jon Kerr Nilsen >> -- >> -- (This complements the John G proposal/second and if we don't worry too >> -- much about causality it all makes sense... I think). >> -- >> -- cheers >> -- johnk >> -- >> -- On 11/15/2011 03:36 PM, john.gordon(a)stfc.ac.uk wrote: >> -- > For chair of the UR-WG I propose Jon Kerr Nilsen and second Andrea Critofori >> -- > >> -- >> -----Original Message----- >> -- >> From: ur-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of >> -- >> Mike Jones >> -- >> Sent: 04 November 2011 17:38 >> -- >> To: ur-wg(a)ogf.org >> -- >> Subject: [UR-WG] move to new chairs process. >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> Folks, >> -- >> >> -- >> I've had a response from Andre and Joel. It seems the WG needs to >> -- >> propose new >> -- >> chairs via Andre M. who must then choose whether to ratify this, that >> -- >> is all. >> -- >> I have suggested that we will agree chairs amongst ourselves by the end >> -- >> of the >> -- >> next telecon. >> -- >> >> -- >> IIRC we haven't formally agreed as a working group who should chair the >> -- >> new >> -- >> group. So we need a process for this. The best documented guidance I >> -- >> can find >> -- >> for the removal of existing and the proposing of new chairs is RFC 2418 >> -- >> ss4 >> -- >> [via GFD-C3 ss3.5]. And in the spirit of other OGF processes we should >> -- >> do this >> -- >> by consensus. We'd also like to do this quickly! >> -- >> >> -- >> I move to start the process of chair selection and propose using the >> -- >> following >> -- >> criteria: >> -- >> >> -- >> 1, We should have 1 chair or 2 co-chairs [GFD-C3 ss 4.3.1] >> -- >> 2, There should be a proposer and seconder for each. >> -- >> 3, Each person may propose one person and second one person (and may >> -- >> not >> -- >> propose or second themselves!) >> -- >> 4, The proposed person must agree to take on the responsibility. :-) >> -- >> 5, Nomination shall close by the start of the next telecon (15th Nov >> -- >> 2011) >> -- >> 6, We should conclude the process at the next telecon where there are >> -- >> at least >> -- >> four participants. >> -- >> 6, Consensus will be reached when there are no objections by persons on >> -- >> the >> -- >> telecon. >> -- >> 7, After the telecon I shall pass on our selection to Andre. >> -- >> >> -- >> Can we agree to this? >> -- >> >> -- >> Mike >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- >> -- >> >> -- >> Subject: Re: UR-WG move to new chairs process. >> -- >> Date: Friday 04 November 2011, 15:02:05 >> -- >> From: Joel Replogle<joel.replogle(a)gmail.com> >> -- >> To: Andre Merzky<andre(a)merzky.net>, Mike Jones >> -- >> <mike.jones(a)manchester.ac.uk> >> -- >> CC: Joel Replogle<replogle(a)ogf.org> >> -- >> >> -- >> Mike - yes, the pages look very out of date. :-) Can you tell me (with >> -- >> Andre's confirmation as AD) who the chairs should be (including their >> -- >> email and >> -- >> gridforge usernames)? Then the chairs (once updated) can go and update >> -- >> the >> -- >> charter pages through this form: >> -- >> www.ogf.org/gf/group_info/charter.php?group=ur-wg >> -- >> >> -- >> Once that's updated there is an approval process (working through the >> -- >> AD >> -- >> again) for the actual updating of the web pages. >> -- >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> -- >> >> -- >> Joel >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> On Nov 2, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Andre Merzky wrote: >> -- >> >> -- >>> Hi Mike, >> -- >>> >> -- >>> thanks for the follow-up - this dropped of my radar. I Cc Joel, who >> -- >> should >> -- >>> know the current status. >> -- >>> >> -- >>> Best, Andre. >> -- >>> >> -- >>> >> -- >>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Mike Jones >> -- >> <mike.jones(a)manchester.ac.uk> >> -- >> wrote: >> -- >>>> Hi Andre, >> -- >>>> >> -- >>>> What's the process for changing the chairs of a working group? UR- >> -- >> WG and >> -- >>>> management of corresponding gridforge pages. >> -- >>>> >> -- >>>> Looks also that the charter is way out of date, I guess this'll need >> -- >> updating. >> -- >>>> Thanks, >> -- >>>> Mike >> -- >>>> >> -- >>> >> -- >>> >> -- >>> -- >> -- >>> Nothing is ever easy... >> -- >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> Joel Replogle Executive Director, OGF >> -- >> replogle(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org >> -- >> PO Box 1738 T: +1-765-228-9068 >> -- >> Muncie, IN 47308 USA F: +1-815-927-6284 >> -- >> >> -- >> Upcoming Events: >> -- >> OGF34 * March 12-14, 2012 * Oxford, UK * www.ogf.org/OGF34 >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------------- >> -- >> -- >> -- -- >> -- +------------------------------------------------------------+ >> -- |Dr. John Alan Kennedy Rechenzentrum Garching (RZG) | >> -- |Mail: jkennedy(a)rzg.mpg.de Boltzmannstrasse 2 | >> -- |Phone: +49 89 3299 2694 85748 Garching | >> -- |Fax: +49 89 3299 1301 | >> -- +------------------------------------------------------------+ >> -- >> -- -- >> -- ur-wg mailing list >> -- ur-wg(a)ogf.org >> -- http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg >> >> >> -- >> ur-wg mailing list >> ur-wg(a)ogf.org >> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg

3 2

Re: [UR-WG] move to new chairs process.
by Tanya Levshina 15 Nov '11

15 Nov '11

Hi, I agree with Morris and have no opinion about the order. Thanks, Tanya On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Morris Riedel wrote: > All, > > while rather observing the group than being actively involved: I agree with both proposed candidates. > > Both have shown active engagement and activities in the last couple of month! > > Take care, > Morris > >> -- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> -- Von: ur-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] Im Auftrag von john alan kennedy >> -- Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. November 2011 07:39 >> -- An: john.gordon(a)stfc.ac.uk >> -- Cc: ur-wg(a)ogf.org >> -- Betreff: Re: [UR-WG] move to new chairs process. >> -- >> -- Hi, >> -- >> -- I propose Andrea Cristofori and Second Jon Kerr Nilsen >> -- >> -- (This complements the John G proposal/second and if we don't worry too >> -- much about causality it all makes sense... I think). >> -- >> -- cheers >> -- johnk >> -- >> -- On 11/15/2011 03:36 PM, john.gordon(a)stfc.ac.uk wrote: >> -- > For chair of the UR-WG I propose Jon Kerr Nilsen and second Andrea Critofori >> -- > >> -- >> -----Original Message----- >> -- >> From: ur-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of >> -- >> Mike Jones >> -- >> Sent: 04 November 2011 17:38 >> -- >> To: ur-wg(a)ogf.org >> -- >> Subject: [UR-WG] move to new chairs process. >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> Folks, >> -- >> >> -- >> I've had a response from Andre and Joel. It seems the WG needs to >> -- >> propose new >> -- >> chairs via Andre M. who must then choose whether to ratify this, that >> -- >> is all. >> -- >> I have suggested that we will agree chairs amongst ourselves by the end >> -- >> of the >> -- >> next telecon. >> -- >> >> -- >> IIRC we haven't formally agreed as a working group who should chair the >> -- >> new >> -- >> group. So we need a process for this. The best documented guidance I >> -- >> can find >> -- >> for the removal of existing and the proposing of new chairs is RFC 2418 >> -- >> ss4 >> -- >> [via GFD-C3 ss3.5]. And in the spirit of other OGF processes we should >> -- >> do this >> -- >> by consensus. We'd also like to do this quickly! >> -- >> >> -- >> I move to start the process of chair selection and propose using the >> -- >> following >> -- >> criteria: >> -- >> >> -- >> 1, We should have 1 chair or 2 co-chairs [GFD-C3 ss 4.3.1] >> -- >> 2, There should be a proposer and seconder for each. >> -- >> 3, Each person may propose one person and second one person (and may >> -- >> not >> -- >> propose or second themselves!) >> -- >> 4, The proposed person must agree to take on the responsibility. :-) >> -- >> 5, Nomination shall close by the start of the next telecon (15th Nov >> -- >> 2011) >> -- >> 6, We should conclude the process at the next telecon where there are >> -- >> at least >> -- >> four participants. >> -- >> 6, Consensus will be reached when there are no objections by persons on >> -- >> the >> -- >> telecon. >> -- >> 7, After the telecon I shall pass on our selection to Andre. >> -- >> >> -- >> Can we agree to this? >> -- >> >> -- >> Mike >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- >> -- >> >> -- >> Subject: Re: UR-WG move to new chairs process. >> -- >> Date: Friday 04 November 2011, 15:02:05 >> -- >> From: Joel Replogle<joel.replogle(a)gmail.com> >> -- >> To: Andre Merzky<andre(a)merzky.net>, Mike Jones >> -- >> <mike.jones(a)manchester.ac.uk> >> -- >> CC: Joel Replogle<replogle(a)ogf.org> >> -- >> >> -- >> Mike - yes, the pages look very out of date. :-) Can you tell me (with >> -- >> Andre's confirmation as AD) who the chairs should be (including their >> -- >> email and >> -- >> gridforge usernames)? Then the chairs (once updated) can go and update >> -- >> the >> -- >> charter pages through this form: >> -- >> www.ogf.org/gf/group_info/charter.php?group=ur-wg >> -- >> >> -- >> Once that's updated there is an approval process (working through the >> -- >> AD >> -- >> again) for the actual updating of the web pages. >> -- >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> -- >> >> -- >> Joel >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> On Nov 2, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Andre Merzky wrote: >> -- >> >> -- >>> Hi Mike, >> -- >>> >> -- >>> thanks for the follow-up - this dropped of my radar. I Cc Joel, who >> -- >> should >> -- >>> know the current status. >> -- >>> >> -- >>> Best, Andre. >> -- >>> >> -- >>> >> -- >>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Mike Jones >> -- >> <mike.jones(a)manchester.ac.uk> >> -- >> wrote: >> -- >>>> Hi Andre, >> -- >>>> >> -- >>>> What's the process for changing the chairs of a working group? UR- >> -- >> WG and >> -- >>>> management of corresponding gridforge pages. >> -- >>>> >> -- >>>> Looks also that the charter is way out of date, I guess this'll need >> -- >> updating. >> -- >>>> Thanks, >> -- >>>> Mike >> -- >>>> >> -- >>> >> -- >>> >> -- >>> -- >> -- >>> Nothing is ever easy... >> -- >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> Joel Replogle Executive Director, OGF >> -- >> replogle(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org >> -- >> PO Box 1738 T: +1-765-228-9068 >> -- >> Muncie, IN 47308 USA F: +1-815-927-6284 >> -- >> >> -- >> Upcoming Events: >> -- >> OGF34 * March 12-14, 2012 * Oxford, UK * www.ogf.org/OGF34 >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------------- >> -- >> -- >> -- -- >> -- +------------------------------------------------------------+ >> -- |Dr. John Alan Kennedy Rechenzentrum Garching (RZG) | >> -- |Mail: jkennedy(a)rzg.mpg.de Boltzmannstrasse 2 | >> -- |Phone: +49 89 3299 2694 85748 Garching | >> -- |Fax: +49 89 3299 1301 | >> -- +------------------------------------------------------------+ >> -- >> -- -- >> -- ur-wg mailing list >> -- ur-wg(a)ogf.org >> -- http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg > -- > ur-wg mailing list > ur-wg(a)ogf.org > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg

1 0

Biweekly UR-WG meeting today @ 15:00 CET
by Jon Kerr Nilsen 15 Nov '11

15 Nov '11

Hi all, Not sure how many will be available for a meeting today with SC2011 going on. Anyway, I'll be on Skype around 15:00 so you can ping me (jon.kerr.nilsen) if you want to join for a short meeting. Proposed agenda: - Actions from previous meeting - Investigate what is needed to convert StAR to a community practice document - who? - Create discussion threads (with pro's and con's) - for TimeDuration - Andrea - for ValidDuration - Jon - Space allocation - John G. - Find out and distribute on mailing list what to do with new chairs and gridforge access - Mike Jones - ValidDuration vs TimeDuration vs NoDuration discussion (see http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.ur-wg/wiki/HomePage) - AOB cheers, Jon

3 3

move to new chairs process.
by Mike Jones 15 Nov '11

15 Nov '11

Folks, I've had a response from Andre and Joel. It seems the WG needs to propose new chairs via Andre M. who must then choose whether to ratify this, that is all. I have suggested that we will agree chairs amongst ourselves by the end of the next telecon. IIRC we haven't formally agreed as a working group who should chair the new group. So we need a process for this. The best documented guidance I can find for the removal of existing and the proposing of new chairs is RFC 2418 ss4 [via GFD-C3 ss3.5]. And in the spirit of other OGF processes we should do this by consensus. We'd also like to do this quickly! I move to start the process of chair selection and propose using the following criteria: 1, We should have 1 chair or 2 co-chairs [GFD-C3 ss 4.3.1] 2, There should be a proposer and seconder for each. 3, Each person may propose one person and second one person (and may not propose or second themselves!) 4, The proposed person must agree to take on the responsibility. :-) 5, Nomination shall close by the start of the next telecon (15th Nov 2011) 6, We should conclude the process at the next telecon where there are at least four participants. 6, Consensus will be reached when there are no objections by persons on the telecon. 7, After the telecon I shall pass on our selection to Andre. Can we agree to this? Mike ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: UR-WG move to new chairs process. Date: Friday 04 November 2011, 15:02:05 From: Joel Replogle <joel.replogle(a)gmail.com> To: Andre Merzky <andre(a)merzky.net>, Mike Jones <mike.jones(a)manchester.ac.uk> CC: Joel Replogle <replogle(a)ogf.org> Mike - yes, the pages look very out of date. :-) Can you tell me (with Andre's confirmation as AD) who the chairs should be (including their email and gridforge usernames)? Then the chairs (once updated) can go and update the charter pages through this form: www.ogf.org/gf/group_info/charter.php?group=ur-wg Once that's updated there is an approval process (working through the AD again) for the actual updating of the web pages. Thanks, Joel On Nov 2, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Andre Merzky wrote: > Hi Mike, > > thanks for the follow-up - this dropped of my radar. I Cc Joel, who should > know the current status. > > Best, Andre. > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Mike Jones <mike.jones(a)manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> Hi Andre, >> >> What's the process for changing the chairs of a working group? UR-WG and >> management of corresponding gridforge pages. >> >> Looks also that the charter is way out of date, I guess this'll need updating. >> >> Thanks, >> Mike >> > > > > -- > Nothing is ever easy... -------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Replogle Executive Director, OGF replogle(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org PO Box 1738 T: +1-765-228-9068 Muncie, IN 47308 USA F: +1-815-927-6284 Upcoming Events: OGF34 * March 12-14, 2012 * Oxford, UK * www.ogf.org/OGF34 -----------------------------------------

5 8

Bi-weekly phone meeting
by Andrea Cristofori 04 Nov '11

04 Nov '11

Dear all, After consulting Jon Kerr Nilsen we would like to propose the first date for our bi-weekly phone meeting on the first of November at 14:00. Does everyone agrees? Cheers, Andrea -- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf

6 7

Re: [UR-WG] OGF biweekly phone meeting
by Andrea Cristofori 02 Nov '11

02 Nov '11

Hi Tanya, This is the link for the UR-WG mailing list registration page: http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg We will post updates and new meetings informations to this list. Cheers, Andrea On 11/01/2011 02:02 PM, Tanya Levshina wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for letting me know. How can I join the UR-WG mailing list? I have to skip today's meeting but hope to participate in the next one. > > Cheers, > Tanya > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Andrea Cristofori<andrea.cristofori(a)cnaf.infn.it> > Date: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 7:46 am > Subject: OGF biweekly phone meeting > To: tlevshin(a)fnal.gov > Cc: ur-wg(a)ogf.org > >> Dear Tanya, >> >> We will start today our biweekly phone meetings at 14:00 CEST. I don't >> >> know if you already got the notification because they were only sent >> to >> the UR-WG mailing list. >> If you are interested you can and you are willing to participate you >> can >> join the mailing list. If you are also willing to follow the phone >> conferences we could move them to a time that is more appropriate. >> >> Today we are going to use skype. My contact is andrea-cnaf and Jon >> Kerr >> Nilsen's contact is jon.kerr.nilsen. >> >> Cheers, >> Andrea >> >> -- >> Andrea Cristofori >> INFN-CNAF >> Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 >> 40127 Bologna >> Italy >> Tel. : +39-051-6092920 >> Skype: andrea-cnaf >> -- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf

1 0

OGF biweekly phone meeting
by Andrea Cristofori 01 Nov '11

01 Nov '11

Dear Tanya, We will start today our biweekly phone meetings at 14:00 CEST. I don't know if you already got the notification because they were only sent to the UR-WG mailing list. If you are interested you can and you are willing to participate you can join the mailing list. If you are also willing to follow the phone conferences we could move them to a time that is more appropriate. Today we are going to use skype. My contact is andrea-cnaf and Jon Kerr Nilsen's contact is jon.kerr.nilsen. Cheers, Andrea -- Andrea Cristofori INFN-CNAF Viale Berti Pichat 6/2 40127 Bologna Italy Tel. : +39-051-6092920 Skype: andrea-cnaf

1 0