[Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013

[Schulz, Martin]

Hi Rich,

I have the same recollection as Bronis and Mohamad. I thought there was a strong majority (at least at the Chicago meeting) for a 3-1 solution with alternating non-US locations (one year Asia, one year Europe, but not both in one year - as it also shows on the current tentative meeting calendar for next year). I know this is not fair to everyone, but the group (again, at least in Chicago, which was pretty complete, though, since we were wrapping up 3.0) felt that this would maximize active participation.

Martin


On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:

> 
> Rich:
> 
> I would have to disagree. At best, you are splitting hairs
> to say this option was not voted on. In the "alternate"
> years, it is simply the 2-2 option that was voted on and
> did not come anywhere near the 3-1 option in terms of votes.
> 
> The arguments against 2-2 (even in alternating years) still
> apply. It significantly lowers attendance by active participants.
> 
> Bronis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Richard Graham wrote:
> 
>> Such decisions are not made lightly - I assure you this.  This was discussed at the last meeting, and this was an option that was not voted on.  However, this was discussed again at the end of the meeting, and some at EuroMPI.
>> 
>> Rich
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Mohamad Chaarawi
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:30 PM
>> To: mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013
>> 
>> Hi Rich,
>> 
>> On 9/26/2012 10:30 AM, Richard Graham wrote:
>>> Therefore, I propose to keep the European meeting of the Forum in
>>> conjunction with EuroMPI, and every other year also have a meeting in
>>> Japan.  With this in mind, here is the proposed schedule for 2012
>> 
>> The majority at the last meeting in Chicago were against having 2 meetings internationally. We had several votes on different formations (4-0, 3-1, and 2-2), and 3-1 was the majority vote.
>> 
>> It would have been fair to have a similar vote in Europe and see how the participants vote..
>> Did the attendance at the Vienna meeting vote on a different schedule, or is your change coming from just some concerns (which are also valid) from some people?
>> 
>> Can we have a formal organizational Vote by eligible organizations on this instead of just scheduling meetings based on suggestions that vary from meeting to meeting?
>> This vote can be done over the phone.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mohamad
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

________________________________________________________________________
Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm
CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA