[ogf20pc] Notes from last night's telcon

[Erwin Laure]

Hi David,

I don't think you get my point: I was asking what the procedure for 
filling the developers track are. I simply don't know.

Since you seem to have a specific problem with me assuming gLite would 
get a slot: In time of OGF19 I responded to the invitation I've got 
presenting gLite in the developers track that we won't do it at OGF19, 
but rather at OGF20, so I assume I will get the slot having registered a 
long time ago ;-) Also, don't forget that this is a co-organized event 
with the program for Wednesday being shared and developed jointly!

I share your concerns about "OGF promoting software" but that's a more 
general point on the developers track that should not be discussed in 
the PC but the relevant OGF bodies.

Cheers,

-- Erwin

David Wallom wrote:
> Hi Erwin,
> 
> I feel that should we have the developer track then it should be along the
> lines of 'all or nothing', independent of what has been externally promised
> to certain groups. 
> We cannot as an organisation (OGF that is not EGEE) be seen to publicly back
> one or two sets of m/ware over another, especially  those products that are
> not using many of the standards that are in draft left alone
> recommendations. 
> This may leave those that fund people to visit OGF questioning why all this
> work on standards that aren't being incorporated into software that OGF is
> being seen to promote. My point is that it is all about image and in some
> further ways as a man from Google said today on the BBC 'eating our own
> dogfood'.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On 22/2/07 08:21, "Erwin Laure" <Erwin.Laure at cern.ch> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi David,
>>
>>I don't think this is what we decided. We only discussed the workshop
>>program and from the submissions received we identified some that would
>>better fit into the developers track. There are already other sessions
>>considered for the developers track, like gLite and globus.
>>
>>However, I (and the people on the phone last time) don't know how the
>>developers track eventually will be put together, i.e. how contributions
>>are solicited. Geoffrey?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>-- Erwin
>>
>>David Wallom wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Dave et al,
>>>Many thanks for these notes. I am _VERY_ concerned though that we are half
>>>considering cancelling the developer track. I feel that we either cancel it
>>>all or have a fully representative set of middleware & tools. Since a large
>>>part of the UK e-Science community will be there who would not normally
>>>attend we would be in danger of giving the impression that these two and
>>>these two alone are OGF recommended middleware, which bearing in mind that
>>>they are largely not standards based may seem an error.
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>David
>>>
>>>On 21/2/07 23:11, "Dave Berry" <daveb at nesc.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>All,
>>>>
>>>>As promised, here are the notes fron last night's telephone meeting.  As
>>>>you will see, we are recommending several mergers between proposed
>>>>workshops.  I have mailed the organisers of the relevant workshops.
>>>>
>>>>Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>>Dave Berry
>>>>Deputy Director, Research & E-infrastructure Development
>>>>National e-Science Centre, 15 South College Street
>>>>Edinburgh, EH8 9AA           Tel: +44 131 651 4039
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>ogf20pc mailing list
>>>>ogf20pc at ogf.org
>>>>http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc
>>>
>>>
>