[Pgi-wg] PGI decision-making process - seeking input

[Andre Merzky]

+1 for having and explicit process in place to get PGI forward :-)
FWIW, I don't think you violate any OGF rules.

Best, Andre.


On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Oxana Smirnova
<oxana.smirnova at hep.lu.se> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> some suggestions on decision-making process in PGI were already made, both
> on this list and during today's meeting (trust me ;-) ). I was appointed by
> the group co-chair to prepare a proposal for simple internal guidelines
> (this ought to be in the minutes).
>
> I therefore would like to solicit input from those of you who have opinion
> and did not express it yet. I'll try to outline the background:
>
> 1. PGI stands for "Production Grid Infrastructures", specifically:
> 1a. Stakeholders represent parties enabling production grid infrastructures:
>  * administrators
>  * middleware providers
>  * users
> 2. (1) implies certain group specific, namely:
> 2a. Stakeholders enter with pre-existing deployed solutions, related
> interfaces  etc
> 2b. There are substantial numbers of customers behind every stakeholder
> 2c. There is a substantial, and ever growing, number of stakeholders
>
> For reference, here's a list of distinct stakeholders represented in PGI
> which I deduced from currently active PGI participants, in no particular
> order:
> UNICORE, DEISA/PRACE, Globus/IGE, EDGI, NDGF, ARC, EGI, gLite, GENESIS,
> TeraGrid, SAGA, NAREGI/RENKEI, NGS (and I probably missed some).
> Several stakeholders are represented by more than 1 individual. Even if
> UNICORE, ARC and gLite will become a single EMI stakeholder, there will
> still be more than 10.
>
> In general, the group should follow the OGF guidelines and aim to achieve
> consensus. However, due to the large number of stakeholders and high stakes,
> consensus is often practically impossible. In such cases, decisions must be
> made following a consistent *open* procedure, and not left to the judgement
> of a single person: this is how it is done in modern democratic societies.
>
> A solution can be to:
> a) Limit number of decision-makers by applying criteria such as affiliation
> (one voice per stakeholder) and/or attendance (75% attendance of all group
> meetings, or similar), or
> b) Introduce voting procedures (quorum, majority, tie-breaking, veto), or
> c) Combine (a) and (b).
>
> Important decisions which involve complex documents and/or potentially
> affect functionality of the production Grid infrastructures, must be well
> prepared in advance:
>  * proposal authors must provide sufficient material for the stakeholders
> such that they can use it to consult their user base if necessary
>  * sufficient preparatory stage must be allowed, during which all the
> stakeholders will have the opportunity to study the proposals and consult
> their customers if necessary
>  * materials must be made public on GridForge and advertised on the PGI
> mailing list, together with relevant deadlines
>  * decisions achieved by consensus, and *especially* those achieved by
> voting, must be documented in respective public meeting notes for further
> reference
>
>
> Please send your thoughts either to the list or directly to me by next
> Wednesday, November 17.
>
>
> I anticipate irritated comments about overcomplicating the process and
> violating OGF rules. Believe me, there is nothing complicated, and this is a
> very simplified model of public decision-making process, successfully used
> in bodies from condominium boards to country parliaments. Ad-hoc procedures,
> absence of relevant documentation and reliance on a wise leader typically
> lead to stagnation and failures, even if there are individual success
> stories. I am confident OGF is not pursuing this latter track.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Oxana
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pgi-wg mailing list
> Pgi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
>
>



-- 
Nothing is ever easy...