[Pgi-wg] Thoughts on the airplane home (GIN, PGI, Cycle sharing)

[Andrew Grimshaw]

Balázs, and everyone else too,
I agree that they are similar questions. I believe the situation is now
different and improved. The difference is that when we started the use case
and requirement definition phase we had proposals on how to proceed, e.g.,
the "Geneva Execution Service" and the "GES Realization via Existing
Specifications" documents produced in the late Spring and Summer of 2009,
but no solid requirements with which to compare the proposals. A regular
refrain at that time was something along the line of "X does not meet our
requirements", yet as a group we had no definition of the requirements.
Trying to meet requirements in the absence of an agreement of exactly what
the requirements are is a difficult challenge in any circumstance - even
harder with such a diverse group.

My recollection (perhaps flawed) is that is why we started the whole
requirements process at the Munich meeting in March, so that we could make
rational (or at least informed) decisions based on requirements going
forward. 

Finally, I agree totally that the process must remain transparent and
available to all members (or anyone who wants to join) to discuss.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: pgi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of
Balazs Konya
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 5:37 AM
To: pgi-wg at ogf.org
Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] Thoughts on the airplane home (GIN, PGI, Cycle
sharing)

hi Andrew,

thanks for sharing your thoughts. i have just one comment this time :)

On 2010-10-30 18:01, Andrew Grimshaw wrote:
> PGI profile
>
> This is the big question. We’ve gone through use cases, requirements,
> counting up the use cases that require each requirement, and two
> approaches to meeting those requirements (see slides).
>
> How are we to proceed? Should we ask each proposer to provide more
> detail? Should we solicit more proposals? Should we work through both
> paths? Should we vote?

indeed, these are the difficult questions. these are the same questions the 
group faced before we went back to the use case/requirement 
collection/definition phase.

whatever happens, the process should be transparent and sufficient time
should 
be made available for group members to digest the developments and the
process.


cheers,
Balazs


-- 
Balázs Kónya

Technical Director

European Middleware Initiative          www.eu-emi.eu
NorduGrid Collaboration                 www.nordugrid.org

Lund University                         balazs.konya at hep.lu.se
Institute of Physics, EHEP              phone:   +46 46 222 8049
BOX 118, S - 221 00 LUND, Sweden        fax:     +46 46 222 4015
_______________________________________________
Pgi-wg mailing list
Pgi-wg at ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg