[ogf20pc] Notes from last night's telcon

[Dave Berry]

Folks,

My understanding is that the developer track is not organised by the PC
but by people within the OGF organisation.  This is similar to the way
the Entreprise track is organised.

There is a suggestion to cancel the developer track at OGF20, as we are
short of slots and have several good workshop proposals.  E.g. we would
like to fit in the Arts and Humanities workshop.  

If we do cancel the developer track, we can still schedule some isolated
technology review sessions, without making them into a formal track.  We
are committed to a session on Glite, partly as a past commitment from
OGF19 and partly because it is perfect content for the overlap day with
the EGEE User Forum.  We have also a commitment to a GT4 session.  As UK
e-Science are hosting both events, I think the OGF should also allocate
a session for OMII-UK.  That is the minimum; they could stop at just
these three sessions.

I don't agree with the conjecture that by hosting a session on a
particular technology, OGF is in any way endorsing that technology.  My
understanding of these technology review sessions is that they are to
provide a chance for users of a technology to meet the developers of
that technology, without any implication that OGF does or does not
endorse it.  In fact I'm not aware of any mechanism or any proposal for
a mechanism by which OGF would endorse any given technology.  If you
want to discuss such a possibility, I suggest that's a topic for another
forum.

Best wishes,

Dave.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ogf20pc-bounces at ogf.org 
> [mailto:ogf20pc-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Erwin Laure
> Sent: 22 February 2007 09:35
> To: David Wallom
> Cc: ogf20pc at ogf.org; Geoffrey Fox
> Subject: Re: [ogf20pc] Notes from last night's telcon
> 
> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> ogf20pc mailing list
> ogf20pc at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf20pc
>