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

[Morris Riedel]

Hi,

  when I copy this into a word file using font size 11 this process is more than a half page as agreed. Could you please shorten it and make it more concrete to PGI.

Many thanks.

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: Donnerstag, 11. November 2010 23:27
>-- An: pgi-wg at ogf.org
>-- Betreff: [Pgi-wg] PGI decision-making process - seeking input
>-- 
>-- 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

-------------- 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/20101112/74e0afe9/attachment.bin