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

[Morris Riedel]

Hi,

 that's what I had in mind too.

>-- 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).

This particular approach turned already out to be a very effective tool since a couple of months (2 documents out) and with this I see no problem in moving forward and reaching consensus also on the specification level.

In the initial cycle we did not used this 'tool' trying always to reach a full consensus of all and that was hard.


Nevertheless, let's not forget that we produced two documents and increased the mutual understanding.


Thanks for this Andre,
Morris



>-- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>-- Von: andremerzky at gmail.com [mailto:andremerzky at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Andre Merzky
>-- Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. November 2010 19:01
>-- An: Oxana Smirnova
>-- Cc: Riedel, Morris; pgi-wg
>-- Betreff: Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for
>-- requirements
>-- 
>-- 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...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3550 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/pgi-wg/attachments/20101107/54a1fd61/attachment.bin