[CCGT] RE: [gfsg] Fwd: Community Council Agenda items - April 5 Meeting

[Malcolm Atkinson]

Sorry Charlie to have been so demanding - that all looks great to me.  I
never doubted that it would be.  I partly posed the questions to see if
the old GROC criteria (which I had used in my judgements) were still the
ones GFSG would support.

Malcolm
 

 >-----Original Message-----
 >From: Charlie Catlett [mailto:catlett at mcs.anl.gov] 
 >Sent: 18 April 2005 16:27
 >To: matsu at is.titech.ac.jp; Malcolm Atkinson
 >Cc: ccgt at ggf.org
 >Subject: Re: [gfsg] Fwd: Community Council Agenda items - 
 >April 5 Meeting
 >
 >>
 >>mpa> I read all three workshop proposals.
 >>mpa> The questions look like the old GROC ones, and I notice 
 >that Charlie
 >>mpa> didn't answer them and that the health grid only 
 >answered some of them.
 >
 >Ah, sorry I didn't run the GROC approval gauntlet correctly - we 
 >spend several hours in Seoul talking about how to get additional 
 >communities engaged in GGF and this was in direct response to that 
 >GFSG discussion.  I did not realize I still needed to fill out the 
 >GROC forms in triplicate.   :-)
 >
 >Appended is my response to Malcolm's two (not focused on one group; 
 >publication).  Here is my official GROC application form:
 >
 >A)     Workshop Title
 >
 >Science Gateways:  Exploring Common Interfaces, Policies and 
 >Interactions between Grid Resources and Science Communities
 >
 >B)     Proposed workshop organizer names and affiliations (possibly 
 >incl. review committee for type 2). Be sure to identify yourself if 
 >you are a chair of an existing RG/WG.
 >
 >Catlett (UC/ANL), Gannon (IU), Foster (UC/ANL), Wilkins-Diehr (UCSD), 
 >Goasguen (Purdue)
 >Have requested contacts from Tony Hey and Satoshi Matsuoka for people 
 >doing similar work elsewhere to help organize.
 >
 >C)     RG/WG that will be involved (including potential RG/WGs as 
 >well as RG/WGs up for approval). If you are proposing a workshop 
 >without being a full RG, please provide a separate RG submission 
 >info, including candidate RG name, charter, area, chairs, BOF 
 >descriptions, etc.
 >
 >This workshop does not involve a particular RG/WG - it is intended to 
 >bring in new communities.  However, we expect that some from the Life 
 >Sciences RG and GCE RG will participate.
 >
 >D)     Scope and Content (a paragraph or two of the workshop 
 >description to be put on the program.
 >
 >Provided already
 >
 >E)      Potential speakers for type one (invited( and possibly two 
 >workshops. Any additional info are welcome including the title of the 
 >talk, their abstract, etc. In fact the proposed program may be put 
 >here.
 >
 >We will have 4-6 presentations from people who are building, or have 
 >built, science gateways (portals or application software that 
 >provides Grid resources to scientists).  Three will be from the 
 >TeraGrid project, three from other projects as we find them (we are 
 >actively seeking). 
 >
 >There will be 4-6 presentations regarding key technology/policy 
 >issues such as authentication and authorization, web services 
 >implementation strategies, etc.
 >
 >F)      Past History of hosting a similar workshop inside or 
 >outside GGF.
 >
 >Catlett, Foster and Gannon have pretty good track record 
 >right there...
 >
 >G)     Duration of workshop - half day (2-3 slots incl. Breaks) or 
 >whole day (4-5 slots)
 >
 >Whole day
 >
 >H)     Estimated # of participants (if possible)
 >
 >Unsure - probably 100-150
 >
 >I)        Publication Plans --- please indicate if you have plan to 
 >publish the workshop result with a certain publisher. If left out we 
 >will assume that the workshop product will be a GGF Informational 
 >Document.
 >
 >GGF informational
 >
 >
 >CeC
 >
 >>Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:50:08 -0500
 >>To: matsu at is.titech.ac.jp, Charlie Catlett <catlett at mcs.anl.gov>, 
 >>Dennis Gannon <gannon at cs.indiana.edu>
 >>From: Charlie Catlett <catlett at mcs.anl.gov>
 >>Subject: Re: [CCGT] Science Gateways workshop background
 >>Cc: matsu at is.titech.ac.jp, ccgt at ggf.org
 >>Bcc:
 >>X-Attachments:
 >>
 >>Hi-
 >>The purpose of the workshop is to bring together folks who are 
 >>trying to bring Grid capabilities to a particular science community 
 >>(atmospheric scientists, chemists, bioinformatics folks, etc.), and 
 >>who are looking to use web services and/or web portals to do so.  I 
 >>am seeing these communities moving out ahead of GGF or the "grid" 
 >>experts or "portal" experts.  This is creating a danger that those 
 >>of us running Grids or Grid resources will have a chaotic situation 
 >>where our key commmunities will each want to set up an ad-hoc 
 >>interaction mode with us to serve their communities.  One will want 
 >>to use group accounts and another will want to install a custom 
 >>daemon on our machines.  Another will want to use web services and 
 >>another will want .NET.
 >>
 >>The draft I circulated was a first cut at understanding what 10 
 >>communities are trying to build, and all ten want to access Grid 
 >>resources in TeraGrid.  Some are also building their own Grids, and 
 >>all would like to also access Grid resources in the UK or Japan.
 >>
 >>The idea of this workshop is to bring these consumers together with 
 >>one another and with producers to see if there are some things we 
 >>might agree on that can be implemented to nudge them toward some 
 >>common solutions.  Now, some TeraGrid folks have made some headway 
 >>in looking at this and I would like to broaden that discussion to 
 >>others who are doing similar things (or should be). To this end I 
 >>asked Tony Hey last week to put me in touch with the right person or 
 >>persons from the UK, and would like similar contacts from Japan 
 >>(Satoshi please suggest) and elsewhere.
 >>
 >>I don't see this as a TeraGrid-centric activity - we don't need GGF 
 >>to do that.  We need GGF to help us broaden the effort by helping us 
 >>reach other communities.
 >>
 >>So I would expect to do a call for participation not to the producer 
 >>community (GCE-RG, GGF typical producer population, portal experts), 
 >>though it would be good for them to participate, but to the consumer 
 >>community.  I.e. those who don't really care that much about 
 >>standards or web services or grid technology other than that they 
 >>want to use them to serve their customers doing science.
 >>
 >>The draft I circulated would be used to structure the workshop, get 
 >>input from more consumer groups, get producer groups to talk about 
 >>how they are addressing these issues, and then update the document 
 >>as a GGF informational document.
 >>
 >>
 >>CeC
 >>
 >>At 2:21 AM +0900 4/10/05, Satoshi Matsuoka wrote:
 >>>Charlie, Dennis,
 >>>
 >>>I agree on its viability, but still Malcolm's concern that it be a
 >>>TeraGrid-only centric event will have to be considered. Here is a 
 >>>(form) letter,
 >>>and with proper fulfillment of the workshop template and widespread
 >>>solicitation to key portal groups in EU as well as AP, hopefully the
 >>>concern will be addressed.
 >>>
 >>>(form letter is attached below)
 >>>							Satoshi
 >>>
 >>>----
 >>>
 >>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:52:37 -0500
 >>>Charlie Catlett <catlett at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
 >>>
 >>>catlett> Friends-
 >>>catlett> Since the proposal I sent regarding this workshop 
 >mentioned a group
 >>>catlett> in TeraGrid that was aiming to have a document 
 >drafted in March I
 >>>catlett> wanted to send it to you.  It's very preliminary, 
 >but it shows that
 >>>catlett> the group is serious and already getting work 
 >done.   I expect an
 >>>catlett> iteration on this document within a few weeks 
 >since it was discussed
 >>>catlett> in great detail during several sessions of the 
 >TeraGrid all-hands
 >>>catlett> meeting earlier this week.  I think this workshop 
 >will be very
 >>>catlett> important to the community.  My hope is that it will bring 
 >>>in some of
 >>>catlett> the less-involved sectors of the community 
 >including people who are:
 >>>catlett>
 >>>catlett> - building portals for scientific communities
 >>>catlett> - implementing web services on resources in 
 >operational grids
 >>>catlett> - developing operational policies and mechanisms 
 >for varying degrees
 >>>catlett> of authorization (from full access shell accounts 
 >to restricted
 >>>catlett> service invocations) based on varying degrees of 
 >>>authentication (from
 >>>catlett> highly trusted authentication to anonymous access)
 >>>catlett> - trying to make multiple grids work together, etc.
 >>>catlett>
 >>>catlett> CeC
 >>>
 >>>-----
 >>>
 >>>Charlie, Dennis,
 >>>
 >>>Thanks for yoru workshop proposal for the workshop proposal
 >>>"Science Gateways Portals Workshop".
 >>>
 >>>I am sending this email as the current GROC co-chair and 
 >also on behalf
 >>>of the newly proposed community council.
 >>>
 >>>As a part of transitional activity of GGF governance to 
 >strengthen the
 >>>community activities, the GFSG and the proposed community council
 >>>therein will be taking active responsibility in workshop 
 >oversight. In
 >>>the light of this we have decided to provide active dialogs to the
 >>>workshop organizers to help strengthen the organizational process as
 >>>well as its exterior outreach.
 >>>
 >>>Please re-distribute this email to other organizers as well 
 >as anybody
 >>>else involved in your workshop organization.
 >>>
 >>>Since time is short till GGF14, I am accelerating the 
 >process by sending
 >>>you comment(s) already made. As you see, although you have solid
 >>>backings, and the workshop is accepted in principle, 
 >nevertheless as you
 >>>see the comments below indicate that there is room for 
 >improvement in
 >>>the proposal. I hope you could make the initial revisions 
 >by reflect the
 >>>comments as you see fit, and send to the (proposed) 
 >community council
 >>>the revised version in about a week's time (around April 
 >15th). In the
 >>>meantime as additional comments come along, which will be 
 >forwarded to
 >>>you if deemed helpful in the improvement, and if you make 
 >improvements
 >>>as well, please let us know where you would like to do so.
 >>>
 >>>Also please note that the primary intention for this is that we will
 >>>want to allow some of the workshop to be a
 >>>academically viable and recognizable activity from not only 
 >within the
 >>>Grid community but from other CS communities. Thus, we would like
 >>>to push on external communication of the workshop, both in terms of
 >>>the content as well as the viability of its organizational 
 >manners. It
 >>>is NOT intended to increase bureacratic stronghold of GFSG and the
 >>>community council therein over the research groups.
 >>>
 >>>To quote one community council member: "I am passionate 
 >about the high
 >>>value of good workshops: they stimulate, they inform, they build
 >>>communities, they cross-fertilise and they recognise the 
 >need for new
 >>>lines of work.  Without workshops I think GGF would drift 
 >towards narrow
 >>>technical nit-picking standards. The value of workshops is much
 >>>diminished if the only effects are on those at the 
 >workshop.  Hence the
 >>>demand for publication and publicity."
 >>>
 >>>I hope the new (proposed) community council can fruitfully 
 >work with the
 >>>workshop organizers to fulfill such desires, to have you 
 >host a high-quality
 >>>and a productive workshop. Looking forward to the
 >>>revised proposal as well as the workshop itself. Thanks.
 >>>
 >>>					Best Regards,
 >>>					Satoshi Matsuoka
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>Comment 1:
 >>>===
 >>>The Science Portals workshop looks a good topic, and we can 
 >trust Dennis
 >>>and Charlie will run an excellent workshop.  However, we 
 >need to take
 >>>care that it doesn't become TeraGrid centred or US centred. 
 > We should
 >>>see others, from Asian grids and European grids engaged in 
 >planning /
 >>>presenting IMHO.  I can find some, but the recent week on 
 >portals at eSI
 >>>led by Jason Navotny has a good list of names
 >>>(http://www.nesc.ac.uk/action/esi/contribution.cfm?Title=549),
 >>>particularly UK ones.
 >>>
 >>>I would also suggest Roberto Barbera from Catania, bringing 
 >experience
 >>>on EGEE's use of the GENIUS portal Roberto Barbera
 >>><roberto.barbera at ct.infn.it> https://genius.ct.infn.it/.  
 >We have used
 >>>it extensively for traiining and (with GILDA) for new user community
 >>>induction.
 >>>
 >>>What is the planned model of communication?  What should it 
 >not clash
 >>>with? ...
 >>>
 >>>I vote for accept, but push on broadening, getting 
 >questions answered
 >>>and publication plan.
 >>>===
 >>>
 >>>Comment 2 (general):
 >>>===
 >>>I think we might encourage more substantial publication 
 >such as journal
 >>>special issues so as to give greater credit to (academic) 
 >participants
 >>>However in general I think we should let each workshop make 
 >its choice as
 >>>"external outreach, publication and publicity" which should exist in
 >>>some fashion
 >>>
 >>>===
 >>>
 >>>Comment 3: (Satoshi)
 >>>===
 >>>There are several groups in AP working on "Science Gateway" Portals,
 >>>including those in Japan and Korea, and those should be contacted.
 >>>For example, AIST-GTRC has a PSE Builder effort, and 
 >NAREGI's WP3/6 are
 >>>working on high-level portals interface. Korea's K* Grid has several
 >>>efforts in those regard.
 >>>
 >>>Perhaps the best method is to do a call-out throught 
 >pragma, with help
 >>>from Peter Artzburger @ San Diego. By all means it is 
 >important to make
 >>>the intentions clear so that not all the Grid portals on 
 >earth will try
 >>>to participate and ask for a time slot.
 >>>
 >>>---------
 >
 >