[Mpi-forum] Process for handling of such comments - Fwd: [Mpi-comments] One comment on MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012

Wed Aug 8 13:35:21 CDT 2012

Rich and Jeff and chapter authors,

yes, I looked on the two points (1. handling all comments, and 
2. missing people on comments list) and additionally on
3. to act as soon as possible, i.e. not to waste discussion time;
4. to have a process that may work with "any" number of comments;
5. informing/involving the whole forum, because at the end, 
   the whole forum must vote on MPI-3.0 and we do not want late
   discussions one day before voting;
6. works in vacation time because comments are diuscussed
   as early as possible and not after 

Based on the proposal and the discussion and the up to now
small number of comments, I propose the following process:

1. Rich puts all chapter authors (not the whole chapter commitees)
   on the comments list.

2. When a comment on MPI-3.0 draft comes in (allowed until Sep. 6) then 
    - the involved chapter author,
    - or any forum member,
    - (or Rich if the chapter author does not take the job)
   replies to the comment's author that the Forum will
   discuss his/her comment and will return with a reply,

   and forwards the comment to
     "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
   together with a meaningful subject mentioning also the 
   comment's author, here e.g.

     "Fairness of MPI_ANY_SOURCE - Sebastien Boisvert" 

   This helps match the two tracks in mpi-comments (typically only 
   two mails) and mpi-forum (full internal discussion) email lists. 

3. The comment is discussed on mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org 
   and a decision is done depending on our typical rules
    - small things are directly agreed by the chapter author,
    - small corrections are agreed by the chapter committee,
    - larger clarifications maybe discussed and agreed by 
      the whole forum.
   Normally, corrections need broad consensus to be added to
   the document.

4. After consensus, a clear 
    MPI-3.0 draft Aug. 02, 2012 page line reads
     ... 
    but should read 
     ...
   must be available.

5. This answer is sent by the responsible chapter author to the
   comment's author with CC to mpi-comments at mpi-forum.org

   (This 5th step also requires that the chapter authors are
    member of the comments list)

All these mails should be done before Sep. 10, 2012.

If there is real need for a telecon, it is scheduled on Sep. 10.

All decided changes go directly into approved svn.

Decision on the telecon must go until Sep 11 into the apporved trunk.

Final draft version is done on Sep. 12 and published
to the forum.

Because all chapter authors are involved and there is only one
"bottleneck" in item 1, this process should work for any 
number (less 100 :-) of comments.

Rich, okay so?
If yes, we should start with the existing comments.
If no, then please propose another clear process (i.e. full text)
which works in vacation time (e.g., I will be most time off-line
in Sep. 3-14) and all the other constraints mentioned 
at the beginning of this email.

Best regards
Rolf

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Graham" <richardg at mellanox.com>
> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 6, 2012 8:39:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Process for handling of such comments - Fwd: [Mpi-comments] One comment on MPI-3.0 Draft 2,
> August 2012
> Comments in line:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org
> [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff
> Squyres
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 8:40 PM
> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Process for handling of such comments - Fwd:
> [Mpi-comments] One comment on MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012
> 
> I think Rolf's points were twofold:
> 
> 1. How do we track the comments to ensure that we don't lose any /
> consider every one?
> [rich] I plan to look through the archives after the 6th, and to
> forward comments to the relevant wg's. Right now this is simple, but
> if we start to get a lot of comments, will have to get organized a bit
> better.
> 
> 
> 2. If the chapter authors are not subscribed to the mpi-comments list,
> then they won't even know if their chapter got a comment.
> [rich] We can forward mail messages.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> On Aug 6, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Richard Graham wrote:
> 
> > The plan is to go over the comments and make any changes we agree on
> > by the 12th, giving people a week to go over the document before the
> > final votes.
> >
> > Small edits will go to chapter committees for their review, and if
> > there are large items, we will need to have a telecom on the 10th of
> > Sept to decide if and how to respond.
> >
> > So far, there have been only 1-2 minor comments.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Rolf
> > Rabenseifner
> > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 2:01 PM
> > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> > Subject: [Mpi-forum] Process for handling of such comments - Fwd:
> > [Mpi-comments] One comment on MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012
> >
> > Rich and Jeff and chapter authors,
> >
> > Rich,
> >  how do we process the incoming comments.
> >  Should we discuss such comments on
> >
> >    "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>;
> >
> >  and after having a result, replying to the comment with direct
> >  email
> > to the author of the comment with a CC to mpi-comments at mpi-forum.org
> > ?
> >
> >  Everybody can be the starter of such discussion by forwarding such
> >  a
> > comments-email to the mpi-forum list together with a meaningful
> > subject mentioning also the comment's author, here e.g.
> >
> >    "Fairness of MPI_ANY_SOURCE - Sebastien Boisvert"
> >
> >  This helps match the two tracks in mpi-comments (typically only two
> > mails) and mpi-forum (full internal discussion) email lists.
> >
> > Chapter authors,
> >  if nobody else started such a discussion, then the chapter author
> > must start the discussion.
> >  If there is no specific chapter, then Rich as MPI-3.0 chair takes
> > this role.
> >
> > Jeff,
> >  are all chapter authors member of the comments list?
> >
> > Rich, what do you think about this process proposal.
> > You started the idea with public comment, therefore I ask you
> > directly to send out a process rule that we all should use.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Rolf
> >
> > PS: All, please do not use this track for discussing the
> >    content of the comment.
> >
> >
> > ----- Forwarded Message -----
> > From: "Sébastien Boisvert" <sebastien.boisvert.3 at ulaval.ca>
> > To: mpi-comments at mpi-forum.org
> > Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:50:29 AM
> > Subject: [Mpi-comments] One comment on MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012
> >
> > Dear MPI Forum committee members,
> >
> > I would like to submit a comment on the MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012
> > for your consideration.
> >
> > Version: MPI-3.0 Draft 2, August 2012.
> >
> > The URL of the version of the MPI standard:
> > http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/draft_standard/mpi3.0_draft_2.pdf
> >
> > Page: 65
> >
> > Line number: 28
> >
> > Section: 3.8.1
> >
> > In:
> >
> > 3. Point-to-Point Communication
> >     3.8 Probe and Cancel
> >           3.8.1 Probe
> >
> > Comment:
> >
> > It says that the source argument of MPI_Iprobe can be
> > MPI_ANY_SOURCE, but it does say anything about fairness. Therefore
> > MPI_ANY_SOURCE can lead to resource starvation.
> >
> > I think it would be better if probing would be done in a round-robin
> > fashion when the source is MPI_ANY_SOURCE so that any MPI rank has
> > an equal chance of having its message probed and received.
> >
> > Presently, the MPI standard contains nothing about which source
> > should be probed when MPI_ANY_SOURCE is provided.
> >
> > I hope you will consider my comment.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Sébastien Boisvert
> > PhD student
> > Université Laval
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi-comments mailing list
> > mpi-comments at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-comments
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email
> > rabenseifner at hlrs.de
> > High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone
> > ++49(0)711/685-65530
> > University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 /
> > 685-65832
> > Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . .
> > www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner
> > Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . (Office: Allmandring 30)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi-forum mailing list
> > mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi-forum mailing list
> > mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
> 
> 
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres at cisco.com
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

-- 
Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner at hlrs.de
High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530
University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832
Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner
Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . (Office: Allmandring 30)