Action Item on [cads] Community Council Meeting Minutes
Linesch, Mark
mark.linesch at hp.com
Wed May 24 09:08:51 CDT 2006
All,
Just wanted to say I appreciate folks continuing to work this even
through it seems somewhat "in the weeds". I also wanted to reiterate a
few points and share my still developing opinion on this topic.
The reason we are proposing to split the Community function into two
functions is to drive focus and accountability regarding two broad
"communities" critical to our mission. We also felt it important to
enable members of each community to see themselves in the NEWORG's
focus, leadership and priorities. I think it is important to get to "1
word" if at all possible because we will utilize this word in our
emails, communications on the web, powerpoint slides, day-to-day
conversation etc.
In the past, we labeled these communities "Industry" and "Research".
Simply put, our "Research" name was used to express GGF's historical
roots. It attempted (not perfectly I might add) to describe our focus on
eScience applications, users and the communities associated with
computational research and high performance computing. Our "Industry"
label was used to express GGF's desire to focus more on eBusiness
applications, users and the communities associated with IT and
enterprise data centers within particular industries.
Given this as background, I think it is important that we look at both
of these critical "communities" in the context of our 1 word
naming/labeling exercise. Thus, for instance if we used "eBusiness", we
might be inclined to consider "eScience" as the complementary term. I
also realize that no combination is going to be perfect.
Just to refresh on the charters for these two functions:
Charter: The XXXXXX function is responsible for working with scientific,
engineering and computer researchers, developers and users to enable
scientific discovery, research/engineering collaboration,
cyber-infrastructure interoperation and grid education.
Charter: The YYYYYY function is responsible for working with enterprise
IT professionals, developers and vendors to accelerate Grid adoption
within the Enterprise in support of enterprise Line-of-Business (LOB)
user organizations.
So far, I think the contenders seem to be:
eBusiness, eScience
Industry, Research
Enterprise, Research
Business, Science
???????, Infrastructure
I have to confess that I am leaning toward "eBusiness, eScience". I
realize that some do not like the "buzz word" nature of "e", however
this seems to be the closest thing to describe our two "communities" in
a somewhat clear and complementary manner using 1 word. I think these
terms may be better than "Business and Science" in that they are
commonly used to describe the "automation of business and scientific
tasks and processes" and are thus more narrowly defined than the general
terms of "Business, Science". I also believe they are more
complementary and descriptive than "Industry Research" or "Enterprise
Research".
Anyway, thought I would share my thoughts and happy to change my mind at
least two or three more times :-) Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cads at ggf.org [mailto:owner-cads at ggf.org] On Behalf Of Thilo
Kielmann
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:08 AM
To: Alan Blatecky
Cc: gcf at indiana.edu; 'Catlett Charlie'; cads at ggf.org; 'Gwen
Nichols-White'
Subject: Re: Action Item on [cads] Community Council Meeting Minutes
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 08:58:04AM -0400, Alan Blatecky wrote:
> I don't think we should add infrastructure to the list....I think it
> is too broad; moreover, it would even supersede and significantly
> overlap with "Enterprise" and the business communities.
I agree. Furthermore, "infrastructure" sounds too much like "Teragrid"
or "EGEE" which would be about building infrastructure. This would be
the wrong name for what we are looking for.
In fact, we are looking for a nice name that says "research". This is
what we intend, to get a forum for academic grid folks in GGF. (After we
have scared away most of them.)
"research" itself might not be sufficciently sexy to use.
What about "technology"? (as in 'technology innovators' -- the term used
GGF internally for researchers?)
I suggest to use either
a) technology
b) science and technology
In fact I prefer b) even though it is 2.5 words.
Thilo
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cads at ggf.org [mailto:owner-cads at ggf.org] On Behalf Of
> Geoffrey Fox
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:47 AM
> To: Catlett Charlie
> Cc: cads at ggf.org; 'Gwen Nichols-White'
> Subject: Re: Action Item on [cads] Community Council Meeting Minutes
>
> Lets add Infrastructure to list of candidates
>
> Catlett Charlie wrote:
> >>>> e-Science
> > name of a UK program, so too narrow
> >
> >>>> e-Research
> > best not to define yet another new term which does not help
> > communication (the point to choosing a word)
> >
> >>>> Cyberinfrastructure
> > understood broadly in the US, but has a US centrism to it so perhaps
> > too narrow
> >
> >>>> Science (in spirit of NSF which also does education and
> >>>> engineering)
> > ok, maybe, if we are going for one word*
> >
> >>>> Research
> > no*
> >
> >>>>
> >
> > * the trouble with one word is that it paints this group into an
> > academic-only corner. I am tempted to suggest "Infrastructure"
> > because this group in fact exists within a Grid-oriented
> > organization and thus there is no need to clarify that we are
> > talking e- or cyber- or grid.
> >
> > If we are infrastructure then we are not tied exclusively to science
> > (most companies, if they do any science, do very little), research
> > (despite similarities with corporate research, this paints an
> > academic club picture), or some particular made-up buzzword like
> > e-Science or cyberinfrastructure.
> >
> > CeC
> >
> > On May 23, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Geoffrey Fox wrote:
> >
> >> We are trying to find one word!
> >> The full title can (and at one time did) have Research and
> >> Development in it
> >>
> >> Robert Cohen wrote:
> >>> I would prefer something that sounds a bit less pure research or
> >>> Ivory Tower. Some of what will be covered could also be done in a
> >>> development environment or the research side of a corporation.
> >>> Also by dropping cyberinfrastructure the link to infrastructure
> >>> disappears.
> >>>
> >>> Bob
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps analytic or Alan Blatecky wrote:
> >>>> I vote for Science - exactly for the reason Geoffrey has
> >>>> mentioned.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Research isn't as broad, and is often set as opposed to education
> >>>> (hence Research and Education networks)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> e-Science and e-Research are trendy, but already have baggage
> >>>> associated.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I like cyberinfrastructure, but is too broad and covers a huge
> >>>> range of disciplines, tools, and so forth.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Alan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: owner-cads at ggf.org [mailto:owner-cads at ggf.org] On Behalf Of
> >>>> Geoffrey Fox
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 4:11 PM
> >>>> To: cads at ggf.org
> >>>> Cc: Gwen Nichols-White
> >>>> Subject: Action Item on [cads] Community Council Meeting Minutes
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> . Geoffrey Fox, by next Community call (6/6), to create a
> >>>> shortlist (qty 3) options for single-word name for the
> >>>> "Engineering, Science and Research" function, then socialize
> >>>> amongst the research community to ensure acceptance. Final
> >>>> decision will be made for functions and areas by the end of June.
> >>>>
> >>>> We need to find some single word names; here is a start Lets add
> >>>> names and then vote. Here is a start
> >>>>
> >>>> e-Science
> >>>> e-Research
> >>>> Cyberinfrastructure
> >>>> Science (in spirit of NSF which also does education and
> >>>> engineering)
> >>>> Research
> >>>>
> >>>> Gwen Nichols-White wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Attached are the minutes and action items from today's meeting.
> >>>> Our next meeting is scheduled for 10am CST, on Tuesday 6/6/06.
> >>>> Please call if you have questions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Gwen Nichols-White
> >>>>
> >>>> Program Manager
> >>>>
> >>>> Global Grid Forum
> >>>>
> >>>> Office: 630-252-7163
> >>>>
> >>>> Mobile: 630-337-3176
> >>>>
> >>>> Fax: 630-252-4466
> >>>>
> >>>> email: gnwhite at ggf.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -- :: Geoffrey Fox gcf at indiana.edu FAX 8128567972
> >>>> http://www.infomall.org: Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196
> >>>> Lab 8128567977: SkypeIn 812-669-0772 with voicemail,
> >>>> International cell 8123910207
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -- :: Geoffrey Fox gcf at indiana.edu FAX 8128567972
> >>>> http://www.infomall.org: Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196
> >>>> Lab 8128567977: SkypeIn 812-669-0772 with voicemail,
> >>>> International cell 8123910207
> >>>
> >>
> >> -- : : Geoffrey Fox gcf at indiana.edu FAX 8128567972
> >> http://www.infomall.org : Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196
> >> Lab 8128567977 : SkypeIn 812-669-0772 with voicemail, International
> >> cell 8123910207
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> :
> : Geoffrey Fox gcf at indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 http://www.infomall.org
> : Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977
> : SkypeIn 812-669-0772 with voicemail, International cell 8123910207
>
>
--
Thilo Kielmann
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~kielmann/
More information about the cads
mailing list