[appagg-rg] RE:APPAGG Minutes attached

Wed Mar 16 03:21:20 CST 2005

Please note that the mail from David DeRoure was addressed to me and 
we (the AD's) will ultimately select if we want to see a recharter or 
closing and going through a bof procedure. Currently I must say we 
prefer the clean BOF way for a new charter combining interests from 
ubiquitous computing and appagg but nothing is carved in stone yet.

Best regards,
Cees.

At 11:07 AM +0200 3/16/05, dimitris lioupis wrote:
>Dear Ian,
>
>Yes there was some interest (20 attended) and there was discussion in the
>end. I have presented some results we obtained at Patras Univ. and it all
>went well.
>
>There are two options as suggested by David De Roure (see also his attached
>email):
>1. complete the documents described in the charter and conclude the rg and
>get a pad on the back, or
>2. Restructure the charter and increase the scope of the rg to include
>ubiquitous computing, artificial intelligence, sensor networks and such to
>get more people involved and increase the engagement and consensus in
>APPAGG. We could even call it UBICOM-RG if that is the general consensus.
>
>I favour the second approach as it will set us up faster to keep working on
>our research and avoid the BOF stages. In the meantime we should try to
>generate interest in this work. I am attending a workshop on Ubiquitous
>Computing in Edinburgh next may and I am also trying to get in touch with
>CoreGRID who have similar interests. If we generate enough interest we can
>do either of the 2 scenarios described above.
>
>What do you think?? Can you help??
>Regards
>			-Dimitris-
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Taylor [mailto:Ian.J.Taylor at cs.cardiff.ac.uk]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:19 PM
>To: Omer F. Rana
>Cc: dlioupis at cti.gr
>Subject: Re: Minutes attached
>
>Excellent - what was the outcome? -  was there much interest?
>
>Ian
>
>On 14 Mar 2005, at 08:41, Omer F. Rana wrote:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>>  Good presentation today for the Appliances group. Minutes are
>>  attached.
>>
>>  regards
>>  Omer
>>
>>  --
>>  http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/User/O.F.Rana/index.html /
>>  work-fax:+44(0)29-2087-4598
>>  work:+44(0)29-2087-5542 / other:+44(0)7956-299981 / distributed
>>  collaborative
>>  computing / room n2.14 / school of computer science / cardiff
>>  university
>>    queen's buildings / newport road / cardiff cf24 3aa / wales / uk
>>
>>  ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>  This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>>  <appliance-aggregation.txt>
>Lecturer, School of Computer Science, Cardiff.
>Assistant Professor, Dept. Computer Science and CCT, LSU.
>www.cs.cf.ac.uk/user/I.J.Taylor/ & www.p2pgridbook.com
>Tel: +44-781110 3142
>
>From: "David De Roure" <dder at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>To: "Cees de Laat" <delaat at science.uva.nl>
>Cc: "Dimitris Lioupis" <dlioupis at cti.gr>,
>	"Oliver Storz" <oliver at comp.lancs.ac.uk>,
>	"Omer F. Rana" <o.f.rana at cs.cardiff.ac.uk>
>Subject: appliance aggregation
>Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:52:20 +0200
>Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10503141346400.27784-100000 at pandora>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>	charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=6.0
>X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: dder at ecs.soton.ac.uk via kronos.cti.gr
>X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.24 (Clear:RC:0(152.78.70.1):SA:0(0.0/6.0):. 
>Processed in 0.605132 secs)
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2005 13:52:39.0960 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[16556980:01C5289D]
>Thread-Index: AcUonRXCkK8ulhtaRJCW/u7Et85+Bw==
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
>In-Reply-To: <p06210208be5af7501bb7@[150.183.85.163]>
>x-sender: dder at pandora
>x-mailscanner-from: dder at ecs.soton.ac.uk
>x-ecs-mailscanner: Found to be clean
>x-mailscanner-information: Please contact helpdesk at ecs.soton.ac.uk 
>for more information
>
>Cees - a brief report of afternoon discussions around the Appliance
>Aggregation session (minutes of the session will be provided separately).
>
>The context of the session is that this RG had a 36 month charter and
>is now at the end of this time, so Dimitris is planning to bring the
>activity to a close.  The group has produced the first of 3 documents
>and is preparing to produce the next (architecture) prior to the final
>one (standards).  Dimitris appears to be pretty much on his own as the
>others who had been involved in a leadership capacity and in active
>work appear to have withdrawn from this GGF activity.
>
>The session had reasonable attendance and attracted a little discussion.
>Dimitris invited volunteers to help with the next document but on the
>whole people continued to read their email rather than raising their
>hands.
>
>Afterwards we had a "gang of four" meeting with Oliver and Omer Rana
>(Omer had acted as secretary for the session - he used to run a JINI
>activity in GGF and has an interest in ubiquitous computing and sensor
>networks).
>
>We discussed the nature of a future ubiquitous activity in GGF.  We
>felt that it may be appropriate to bring Appliance Aggregation to a
>close and then create a new activity informed by the results of the
>Appliance Aggregation work.  The new RG could bring together the
>interests and enthusiasm of Oliver and Dimitris as leaders, and Omer
>is very supportive.
>
>Subject to discussion with you, we also considered that the best way to
>wrap up the current RG might be to combine the remaining 2 reports into
>one and then to use this output as a basis for the new activity - this
>will make it as useful as possible and perhaps also easier to deliver.
>
>Another strategy would be to review the Appliance Aggregation charter
>to extend it into the new activity.  I prefer the neatness of finishing
>one and starting a new one.  This will of course introduce a hurdle -
>i.e. it remains to be tested whether or not there is sufficient interest
>to create a new RG.
>
>I am waiting to see what the Sensor RG BoF is about tomorrow before
>considering whether a new RG would have a broad umbrella which includes
>sensor networks or whether there should be a distinct sensor activity.
>
>We also discussed various research projects which are playing in this
>space, and how we can bring their work to GGF.  I took an action to
>follow up with CoreGrid as this has a peer-to-peer aspect.  Another case
>in pointis the Akogrimo project, which includes mobility and grid.  The
>european funding programme does encourage standards engagement, so this
>could be mutually beneficial.
>
>Finally, it seems to me that from a community engagement perspective
>there is value in establishing these links with parts of the ubiquitous
>community, as it is a growing community with increasing interest in the
>grid - so I am keen to keep these discussions going.
>
>Thanks
>
>-- Dave

-- 
http://www.science.uva.nl/~delaat/