[Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for requirements

[Andre Merzky]

Hi all,

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Oxana Smirnova <oxana.smirnova at hep.lu.se> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to point out that my "interesting thoughts" are directly based on
> the PGI group description here:
>
>  http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/projects/pgi-wg
>
> This was the mandate of the group when it was approved by the OGF, and it
> explicitly contains the list of relevant standards and specifications, which
> we just re-discovered. It even contains SRM and GridFTP, well in line with
> the stated group's committment to deal with data management - something that
> was contested by the management in Brussels.
>
> Perhaps the group description needs to be updated, if management believes it
> contains controversial statements.  What is the procedure for this?

purely from the OGF procedure perspective, the process would be to

  - draft an agenda update,
  - get rough consensus on that update via the mailing list (one week
final call)
  - either submit that update to your area director,
  - or  submit it online to OGF's living charter (which will trigger
the AD as well).

The update will then be reviewed by the GFSG, and usually accepted if
it is within OGF's mission statement.


For PGI, my very humble opinion is that a charter update is not needed
as long as the group is undecided on the explicit way forward -- and
that decision is long overdue.

If a group is deadlocked like PGI (or rather if it is running circles
as PGI seems to do), it is the duty of the chairs to push the group
along.  In the worst case, if full consensus cannot be reached, a vote
on the available options can lead to rough consensus, which ought to
be enough to get things going again.  "Rough consensus - running code"
is the motto for OGF (borrowed from IETF,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus).

Hope that helps,

  Andre.





> Cheers,
> Oxana
>
>
> 07.11.2010 18:01, Morris Riedel пишет:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>   Interesting thoughts. Indeed.
>>
>>
>>  >-- Or will we start all the specifications from scratch?
>>
>> Depends on the rough consensus and majority decisions in the group step by
>> step for each of the specification in question to be
>> profiled/produces by us.
>>
>>
>>> -- Maybe this is also something to clarify on Thursday.
>>
>> Perhaps, but the approach is clear and has been discussed - then with the
>> 'rough consensus' no problem to move forward working on
>> the specifications.
>>
>>
>> Take care,
>> Morris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> -- Von: pgi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] Im Auftrag
>>> von Oxana Smirnova
>>> -- Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. November 2010 17:32
>>> -- An: pgi-wg at ogf.org
>>> -- Betreff: Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on
>>> 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for
>>> -- requirements
>>> --
>>> -- Hi Morris, all,
>>> --
>>> -- I came to think about the process: now that we have the use cases and
>>> have "derived" the requirements (exact set
>>> -- of which can be still argued and prioritised in various manners), is
>>> it time to come back to the specifications?
>>> -- The "strawman" and such? The high-level scheme on the photo is in no
>>> way different from what we had 2 years ago,
>>> -- after all (remember, the group was called "BES/JSDL/GLUE" in 2008),
>>> the circle is complete now.
>>> --
>>> -- Or will we start all the specifications from scratch?
>>> --
>>> -- Maybe this is also something to clarify on Thursday.
>>> --
>>> -- Cheers,
>>> -- Oxana
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pgi-wg mailing list
> Pgi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
>
>



-- 
Nothing is ever easy...