[Pgi-wg] OGF PGI : Co-chairs - Participation of Members - Reaching a consensus

[Etienne URBAH]

Balazs, Morris and all members of OGF PGI,


I completely agree with Oxana :

-  For a Working Group to achieve success, there must always be someone 
active to gather stakeholders, chair meetings, propose directions and 
decisions, and gather consensus.
    So OGF PGI needs one leader, and possibly a deputy or a few, 
respected as authorities both in PGI and in their respective projects.

-  The occasional absence of all co-chairs should NOT block daily work, 
but 1 representative for each of ARC, gLite and Unicore is necessary to 
adopt directions and decisions.


Besides, scheduled telephone conferences using +9900827049931906 are NOT 
the only way to progress inside OGF PGI :

-  Anyone can review existing input documents, drafts or Wiki pages, and 
send comments, remarks or suggestions by mail,

-  Members can directly improve existing input documents, drafts or Wiki 
pages, create new ones, and notify the group by mail,

-  At any time, anyone can organize and perform a conference with the 
appropriate stakeholders of his choice on a given subject, using 
telephone, Skype, EVO, CC-IN2P3 MCU, ...
    In particular, it is very useful that each participant is able to 
see the list of participants and who is the current participant 
speaking.  This featured is offered by :
    - The Automated audioconferencing server of CERN,
    - Skype (version 4.1 for Windows and version 2.8 for Mac OS X), 
which also permit screen sharing (see my mail dated 27 July 2009),
    - EVO at http://evo.caltech.edu/evoGate/


Finally, I propose that every member browses, compares, reviews and 
improves following documents and Wiki pages of OGF PGI :


Vocabulary
----------
-  Wiki page at 
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.pgi-wg/wiki/Vocabulary


Security
--------
-  Matrix at the bottom of the Wiki page at 
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.pgi-wg/wiki/HomePage

-  'PGI Security Model' at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15584?nav=1


Execution Service
-----------------
-  Wiki page at 
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.pgi-wg/wiki/GES

-  'Slides about execution service' at 
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15593?nav=1

-  'PGI Execution Service Overview' at 
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15735?nav=1

-  'Comments on the GES Strawman' at 
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15633?nav=1
    (I can NOT find the original GES Strawman at 
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15590?nav=1 anymore)

-  'GES Realization via Existing Specifications' at 
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15630?nav=1


Job State Model
---------------
-  'PGI Single Job State Model - Textual description' at 
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15697?nav=1

-  'PGI Single Job State Model (available as ZARGO, XMI and PNG)' 
available under 6 formats at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15655?nav=1


Best regards.

-----------------------------------------------------
Etienne URBAH         LAL, Univ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS
                       Bat 200   91898 ORSAY    France
Tel: +33 1 64 46 84 87      Skype: etienne.urbah
Mob: +33 6 22 30 53 27      mailto:urbah at lal.in2p3.fr
-----------------------------------------------------


On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Oxana Smirnova wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> [snip]
>> I am interested that not a single person from UNICORE, gLITE or ARC 
>> are able to attend? If this is the case then OGF should raise this 
>> matter with their leadership to find out why etc.
> 
> Of course co-chairs are not the only representatives of ARC, gLite and 
> UNICORE in PGI-WG. Absence of any of them does not (should not) mean 
> absence of the respective m/w representative.
> 
> I personally would propose to keep the schedule, and if a chair-person 
> is not available, they should appoint a deputy, on a case by case basis, 
> to lead the call and take notes of decisions and actions.
> 
> As of PGI importance for the 3 middlewares listed above - it's no 
> exaggeration to say that the PGI-WG outcome is of vital importance for 
> them, and quite obviously this is why they initiated this acivity. I am 
> confident they could have converged on a common set of specifications 
> even without OGF umbrella. The very fact that this initiative was 
> brought into OGF shows its openness.
> 
> Cheers,
> Oxana


On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Oxana Smirnova wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> as one of the "rest of the group", I can say that I'm not too 
> comfortable with the idea of many co-chairs. I rather believe in one 
> leader, and possibly a deputy or a few, whatever is the activity.
> But that's just me (and thousands of years of human society experience).
> 
> That said, I also agree with Morris that the most important part is not 
> to count chair-persons, but to have proper representations from each 
> interested party, such that not only this party has a say in PGI, but 
> also that the PGI decisions are adopted by all the parties.
> 
> So, whatever is the number of chair-persons, they all must be respected 
> as authorities both in PGI and in their respective projects.
> 
> Cheers,
> Oxana
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5060 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/pgi-wg/attachments/20090730/c0d91f91/attachment.bin