[Pgi-wg] modified plan for jobmanagement discussions

[David Wallom]

Hi Moreno,

Currently I am still confused, are you (PGI co-chairs) suggesting that we
need a completely new spec or just a document that gives an outline of where
the currently specifications are deficient??

David


On 16/03/2009 13:41, "Moreno Marzolla" <moreno.marzolla at pd.infn.it> wrote:

> Steven Newhouse wrote:
>> What do you mean by a draft of a 'Production Execution Service'? Is this
>> going to start off with a clean sheet or analyse where the current set
>> of specifications works and where they do not work and propose changes?
>> 
>> It seems a great shame now that someone has finally volunteered to move
>> forward on this to stop the work... having the call so that everyone can
>> understand what the issues are (i.e. those that weren't at the original
>> CERN meeting) would seem to be worthwhile use of the call.
> 
> It is important to observe that the PGI activity is not going to stall
> due to this: as Balazs pointed out, the security discussion must
> proceed, as a lot of work has been done and we are hopefully going to
> reach an agreement shortly.
> 
> As far as the job management task is concerned, we are not going to
> prepare a full proposal for a PGI execution service: this is something
> which must be done by the whole PGI working group, and hopefully will
> follow this initial polishment of the Geneva documents.
> We were asked many times during the initial PGI teleconferences to
> provide evidence that the current set of specifications and profiles is
> not adequate to support the needs for our production infrastructures. We
> feel that it is time to finally provide an appropriate, written answer
> to these requests in the form of a well-defined set of requirements for
> a production-quality job management interface. These requirements would
> then help focusing the effort of the PGI group on the actual problems.
> We are unlikely to give appropriate answers to those which were not
> involved in the CERN meeting during the short timeframe of the call, and
> the likely outcome is that we will be asked to prepare such a document
> anyway.
> 
> Your co-chairs,
> Balazs, Moreno and Morris.