[saga-rg] Research Group / Working Groups

[Andre Merzky]

Hi Craig, 

many thanks for your comments, and I think you hit the main
point right on target: all calls for an Umbrella RG will be
in vain if we don't manage to engage more people from within
GGF, with a broader background than we have in the SAGA-RG
right now.

Tom suggested basically the same during our call as you do:
in the worst case, if nobody brings it to life, the RG is a
very quiet, idle one.  Its probably our task to create a
certain amount of understanding and enthusiasm for the SAGA
approach to get it really flying.  This will probably not
happen immediately, but over time.

Well, on a second though: GridRPC folx are the _perfect_
crowd to take the lead on active participation in the
SAGA-RG *hint! hint!* ;-)

Cheers, 

  Andre.


Quoting [Shantenu Jha] (Feb 04 2006):
> 
> All,
> 
> I apologize for not making today's telecon but I was very happily trying
> to get some real work done by not talking on the telephone or responding
> to email (until now ;-).
> 
> I think the proposed decision here is the best approach!
> 
> I do, however, want to give my 2 cents on how I think things should work
> out in reality.  (Steven and Dieter: Are you listening? ;-)
> 
> The umbrella RG is a strategic move for all of GGF (not just for SAGA or
> the GFSG debating society!)  The ability to coordinate the look-and-feel
> of grid APIs will be, imho, quite beneficial.
> 
> Given the reality of the available cycles, however, the core SAGA team
> should get their bit flipped so they can charge full-speed into the WG
> work.
> 
> The RG can be relatively inactive and just kept "on the books" as we (the
> GFSG and SAGA team) "socialize" the idea of coordinating APIs across GGF
> with other WGs.  Of course, by "socializing" the idea I mean getting
> people to understand its importance and become part of a self-sustaining
> critical mass to do the work (like the SAGA team has now).
> 
> This should definitely be a discussion topic for the Town Hall meeting.
> 
> My best regards to all,
> 
> --Craig
> 
> 
> At 04:27 PM 2/3/2006, Tom Goodale wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >We discussed the research group/working group structure on today's call, 
> >present were myself, Andre, Shantenu, Thilo, Pascal and Hartmut.
> >
> >The consensus was to go down the umbrella research group with spawned 
> >working group road.
> >
> >To be concrete:
> >
> >We propose to split the current RG in two:
> >
> >SAGA-RG:
> >
> >    This research group will be responsible for deciding look and feel of
> >    the API, identifying new SAGA subsystems which we should/might want to
> >    have APIs for, spawning working groups to look into them (e.g. after a
> >    design team has come up with a straw-man), and coordinating the
> >    resulting working groups.  It could look into issues with OGSA
> >    alignment, or work with OGSA to spawn a group to look into common
> >    issues.
> >
> >    This group will inherit the current charter, but remove the API document
> >    deliverables and add some text describing the new scope, the process for
> >    spawning working groups, and the relationship between the RG and the
> >    groups.
> >
> >Proposed chairs:  Tom Goodale, Shantenu Jha, Thilo Kielmann
> >
> >SAGA-CORE-WG
> >
> >    This group will concentrate on producing an API document from the
> >    current strawman.  It will inherit the current charter, but removing the
> >    use case and requirements document deliverables.  The charter will be
> >    refined to specify precisely the areas covered by the strawman as the
> >    scope of the WG, and will define how it relates to the RG.  The timeline
> >    for producing the API documents will be unchanged.
> >
> >Proposed chairs:  Tom Goodale, Andre Merzky
> >
> >Note that the chairs proposed above are just suggestions, and will need to 
> >be ratified by the group.  If anyone else would like to become a chair, or 
> >if anyone has an issue with the proposed chairs, please don't hesitate to 
> >speak.
> >
> >This reorganisation will hopefully produce a clear delineation of the 
> >roles of the research group and the working group, and provide a mechanism 
> >for us to spawn more working groups to look at other subsystems such as 
> >GridCPR and GridRPC, or start SAGA activities within such groups if that 
> >would be appropriate.  Creating new WGs in this way would, we hope, make 
> >it easier for people to engage in the process of defining new APIs, and 
> >provide a much clearer process for the generation of these APIs.
> >
> >We do have some worries, though, which we need to discuss before 
> >finalising on this route:
> >
> >1) Will the additional admin overhead be worth the gain ?
> >
> >    The feeling on the call was that this approach has potential to get more
> >    people involved, and worst case, leaves us in the current situation with
> >    an active WG and an inactive RG.
> >
> >2) Will this approach really help us to engage and attract new people ?
> >
> >    We are hoping that the ability to spawn small, tightly-focussed
> >    groups will help make it easier to attract people and focus them on
> >    the API development.
> >
> >We are planning to have another conference call next Wednesday at 1400 GMT 
> >(same time as today's call), to continue discussion of this, and on 
> >Thursday wish to send the decision of the group to the GFSG so that they 
> >may discuss it before GGF.
> >
> >I know this is a short time-frame, but we need to finalise this issue 
> >soon, and comments from the wider group are essential.  Please speak up 
> >one way or another in the next few days as to whether we should go forward 
> >with this plan, or ask the GFSG to just 'flip-the-bit' as per the original 
> >discussions. Any other comments or suggestions would be great.
> >
> >Even a response such as 'no, just flip the bit', or 'go for it' would be 
> >helpful.
> >
> >We have assurance from the ADs that whichever way we decide to go, the 
> >transition will be quick and relatively painless.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Tom
> 



-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andre Merzky                      | phon: +31 - 20 - 598 - 7759 |
| Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) | fax : +31 - 20 - 598 - 7653 |
| Dept. of Computer Science         | mail: merzky at cs.vu.nl       |
| De Boelelaan 1083a                | www:  http://www.merzky.net |
| 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands    |                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+