SourceForge : Post

Project: pgi-wg Discussion > Meetings > Meeting 2010-10-26 - OGF30 PGI Session (3) > List of Posts

Forum Topic - Meeting 2010-10-26 - OGF30 PGI Session (3): (2 Items)

View: as

11/04/2010 10:28 AM

post7605

Meeting 2010-10-26 - OGF30 PGI Session (3)

Conclusions of the requirement presentations.

Reduction of the requirements and prioritization in order to engage in further specification work (in collaboration or 
by other groups such as GLUE, BES, JSDL) have been discussed.

These discussions have been largely build on the following table:
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc16080?nav=1

Outcome was a figure with the focus of the group:
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/downloadDocument/projects.pgi-wg/docman.root.meeting_materials.ogf30/doc16110

This figure needs to be now put into a plan of how to proceed by which persons in dedicated specification groups and 
such requirements what could not be covered in others groups such GLUE, BES, JSDL should be profiles by PGI afterwards 
on top.

After all these we come possibly back and work on the rest of the requirements and do perhaps another specification 
round.

Some notes from the discussions by Johannes:

Morris take our requirements to GLUE
Etienne:
JSDL static
Andrew:
next step: need to know what we want before we bring other people in

Real implementations?

Morris:
first deliverable out in November

Bernd:
PoCs, prototypes
there is still space

JP Navarro:
next steps?

Oxana:
test it against use cases
and
inject requirements into BES
as soon as it works

Bernd:
doesn't make so much sense to add another execution service
we don't want to waste effort

Andrew:
take two proposed approaches and merge those

Morris:
effect of changes during Feb, Aug next year?

Steve:
it it easy to talk standards, to do is much harder

Oxana:
data not covered


Andrew:
Mark and I time to put effort into BES

IGE:
Steve and Tim

EGI:


EDGI:
Etienne

ARC:
Aleksandr

gLite:
Luigi





Steven:
EC projects with dedicated efforts in standardization:
If somebody is not willing to participate, they are failing in
description of work.

Andrew:
don't care if show up or not,
revisit everything, no progress

Steve:
process point
spreadsheet with color code to list
priority activity of working group
7 days for objections to the list

strongly argue the scope


engage the people who need to be engaged

Andre:
rough consensus is enough

Etienne:
globally aprove all of the greens

Etienne URBAH

11/05/2010 3:31 PM

post7607

Re: Meeting 2010-10-26 - OGF30 PGI Session (3)

Reviewing these notes and the associated requirement spreadsheet at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc16080?nav=1 I
have found several issues :

A) Green color of spreadsheet cells for vote count (column T)
-------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of these notes, it is mentioned that I 'globally approve all of the greens'.
I confirm that I expressed this position.
But inside the spreadsheet, the vote count cells (column T) which were green have turned yellow !
Then, my above position has no meaning anymore.

B) Requirements supported by EDGI
---------------------------------
Inside the requirement spreadsheet, you took into account only the 26 'Mandatory requirements' from my mail dated 19
October 2010 at 14:33.

In fact, you should have taken into account the 'Complete list of requirements' specified at the end of the same mail.

Therefore, I have updated the requirement spreadsheet with this complete list (70 requirements).

C) Votes for requirements WITHOUT 'yes' status
----------------------------------------------
Inside the process of voting for requirements, we were supposed to vote ONLY for requirements having 'yes' status.

Inside the requirement spreadsheet, it seemed to me that some votes were for requirements WITHOUT 'yes' status.

In order to be sure, I have reactivated the display of the column displaying 'Agreement OGF29' (column F), and I have
colored in yellow all cells NOT containing 'yes'.

This clearly shows that MANY votes were for requirements WITHOUT 'yes' status.

In particular, requirement 10 'SSL certificates of servers MUST be signed by a CA belonging to IGTF ' gathered 3 votes.

This indicates that some requirements NOT having 'yes' status still have a great importance for several PGI members.

Therefore, I propose to perform a new round of voting, allowing votes for all requirements WITHOUT consideration of
their previous status.

If this proposal is accepted, I would also vote for following requirements :
10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 27, 38, 39, 41, 49, 51, 53, 75, 127, 161, 162, 164, 167

Conclusion
----------
Counting of votes has perhaps been performed too hastily.

The attached 'PGI-Requirements-2010-10-26-Review-Etienne.xls' file contains the 'Complete list of requirements' of EDGI,
and displays the 'Agreement OGF29' column (but I have NOT added any EDGI vote for any requirement NOT having 'yes'
status).

I suggest that each PGI member carefully checks the content of this spreadsheet.

Anyway, I still agree with the priorities stated at OGF30 :
1) XML rendering for GLUE 2.0
2) Usage of GLUE 2.0 entities and attributes inside JSDL
3) Usage of GLUE 2.0 entities and attributes inside JSDL for SPMD and MPI
4) Usage of GLUE 2.0 entities and attributes inside JSDL to describe Applications
5) Usage of GLUE 2.0 entities and attributes inside BES

Etienne URBAH

Attachment:

PGI-Requirements-2010-10-26-Review-Etienne.xls 177 KB

Return