<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Martyn,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> How could things be improved ? There is a link to the 3.0 effort from the main page, and the draft standard is available there. Up until recently there
has not been much of substance to add to the draft standard – the big new functionality has just been voted in recently, and should go up on the web site in the near future (as soon as we complete the process of integration).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> As far as work in progress, would it be helpful if there was some sort of indication as to what is actually been considered, vs. just a pile of “stuff” ?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Rich<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> mpi-forum-bounces@lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces@lists.mpi-forum.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Martyn Foster<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 02, 2012 4:11 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Main MPI Forum mailing list<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><br>
On May 31, 2012 1:58 AM, "George Bosilca" <<a href="mailto:bosilca@eecs.utk.edu">bosilca@eecs.utk.edu</a>> wrote:
<br>
> Another valid issue raised during this meeting was about the blessing from the user community. Interestingly enough for a standard targeted toward a user community, such an issue was never brought forward. I think users should be an important factor in our
decisions, as important as their contributions to the ongoing discussions. And yes the forum should grant them a significant period of time between the moment when we vote a ticket and the moment when this ticket gets into the standard. Our users will clearly
take advantage of such a grace period to thoughtfully evaluate the proposal and raise any issues they might have encountered. We should have done this from day one!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Having a passing interest in one or two issues pertaining to mpi 3, I was rather surprised at just how opaque this group is. Theres nothing linked from the top level web site and no draft since 2010. That leaves user exposure to people dedicated enough to
follow the lists, and delve into trac to find out whats going on. I cant see a list of eligible voting parties... which by definition appears to be a list in flux defined by meeting attendance, with meetings overwhelmingly in one geography.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I would be surprised if many users are able to follow the process in a meaningful way, possibly exempting US labs and a few other institutions actively participating.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Martyn<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>