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

[Oxana Smirnova]

Hi Morris,

this is not the final text yet, but a call for input, as it is said both 
in the subject and in the text. Please do not copy it into any Word 
file, I will send you one (and upload to the GridForge).

Cheers,
Oxana

12.11.2010 06:06, Morris Riedel пишет:
> 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: oxana_smirnova.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 271 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/pgi-wg/attachments/20101112/f1c7f266/attachment-0001.vcf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2357 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/pgi-wg/attachments/20101112/f1c7f266/attachment-0001.bin