[appagg-rg] RE:APPAGG Minutes attached

Sun Mar 20 13:19:00 CST 2005

At 7:19 PM +0200 3/20/05, dimitris lioupis wrote:
>Dear Cees,
>
>There is no doubt in my mind that the AD's will eventually decide which way
>to go as far as the APPAGG rg is concerned. I was only expressing my opinion
>for everyone involved to know. I will keep pursuing the involvement of more
>interested parties in this work as described before, and start preparing the
>architecture document for circulation.

sounds good,

Best regards,
Cees.

>Regards,
>			-Dimitris-
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cees de Laat [mailto:delaat at science.uva.nl]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:21 AM
>To: dimitris lioupis; 'Ian Taylor'
>Cc: appagg-rg at ggf.org
>Subject: [appagg-rg] RE:APPAGG Minutes attached
>
>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/

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