[Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership

Thu Sep 27 08:28:43 CDT 2012

Simply adjourning might be less than ideal.  The last time that happened, it took a decade to restart :-)  However, six months or a year of hiatus might actually be a good thing.  That wouldn't require people to stop working on ideas - just give time for the forum as a whole to catch their breath...

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-
> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Skjellum
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:18 AM
> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership
> 
> Besides leadership, we should ask "why" MPI Next "now" vs "later" vs.
> "ever."
> 
> According to Robert's Rules of Order, a motion to adjourn is always in order.
> Why are we assuming that MPI goes on as before, with multiyear planning?
> We should first entertain, second, and either accept or defeat a motion to
> adjourn, and those voting against adjourning should provide rationale for
> continuing "now."
> A second vote could be to "wait X months/years" and then automatically
> return.
> 
> For instance, why not give the OpenMPI and MPICH development teams a
> chance to finish their work, distribute releases, write up findings, discover
> errata, tune, let people get trained, let applications be ported and use those
> new features, achieve buy-in and acceptance, and have actual users give
> feedback, so we come tothe "Next" with the experience of results?
> 
> In the meantime, research on the areas that are still controversial could
> continue without the need to "be standardized" at the same time as they are
> being figured out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner at hlrs.de>
> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:17:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership
> 
> As MPI-2.1 chair, I must clearly say that I could not have been the MPI-2.1
> chair if there would not have been Rich as the convener of the meetings.
> And I'm thankful that Rich has done it the whole time together with the local
> organizers, mainly Jeff, the team of Microsoft and all European organizers at
> the EuroMPI conferences.
> 
> As far as I understand, Rich would continue to be our convener.
> 
> About MPI-next chair:
> Although the chair should clearly be neutral, I would prefer to have a MPI-
> next chair from a public research institution.
> Of course he/she must have the support from her/his institution to travel to
> the meetings.
> I see also that he/she need not only to focus on the new topics, but also on
> the quality of the standard, i.e., after the time and content is right, to
> organizing also the finalization of such an new version of MPI.
> 
> Rolf
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rajeev Thakur" <thakur at mcs.anl.gov>
> > To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:51:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership It has also been
> > suggested that the Forum take a break for a bit before resuming again,
> > but I don't know if that was discussed at the last meeting.
> >
> > Rajeev
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 27, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Schulz, Martin wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:46 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Jeff:
> > >>
> > >> My intent is not to "neuter" the chair. Instead, I am only stating
> > >> that the chair should clearly state when (s)he is voicing
> > >> personal/institutional opinions as opposed to acting as leader
> > >> (sometimes the roles conflict and also sometimes the leader does
> > >> have to enforce the clear general opinion).
> > >
> > > I think you are saying the same thing. This is, of course, aside the
> > > fact that you wouldn't find anybody who is active in the forum and
> > > who doesn't have a personal agenda. We all have one and that's why
> > > we are engaged. The people with a double role just have to keep it
> > > separate - and that's not only true for the chair, but (perhaps to a
> > > lesser extent) also for the other roles that Jeff pointed out.
> > >
> > > I also agree with Jeff - if we are setting up a new structure, let's
> > > look at all roles and define them better.
> > >
> > >> As to logistics, yes, I see your point but I still think that
> > >> combining them would generally simplify things. I also think it is
> > >> fine for the chair to delegate aspects that the convener handles
> > >> but they should still be responsible for them (we all blame the
> > >> chair if they do not go right so they should also have the
> > >> authority since they de facto have responsibility).
> > >
> > > The convener role will always have to be split up, in particular if
> > > meetings get hosted at individual organizations. A certain part of
> > > the work (e.g., wireless, badging, room reservation, ...) always
> > > fell on people from the hosting organization and that won't change.
> > >
> > > The more critical question, IMHO, is the financial part that Jeff
> > > brought up. We have organizations that have more restrictions than
> > > others and we have to take that into account. Further, if the person
> > > responsible for financial transactions changes, we have to transfer
> > > money - the same if the person responsible changes organization (as
> > > we can see at Rich's example, which ended up being non trivial or
> > > even impossible, if I understood the situation right). The easiest
> > > thing would be to have a constant entity who manages all financial
> > > aspects of the forum along with a separate role of a treasurer.
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Bronis
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> This is exactly why we should have the discussion: "chair" and
> > >>> "convener" have not necessarily been the same person over the last
> > >>> few years. Rich has been the convener since 2.1, but has only been
> > >>> the chair for 3.0.
> > >>>
> > >>> My $0.02 is that I don't think they need to be the same person.
> > >>> The chair is the [neutral] technical leader (and therefore sets
> > >>> the meeting agendas), but the convener is someone with an
> > >>> organization who can make meeting room reservations, accept
> > >>> registration and payments from meeting attendees, etc. That being
> > >>> said, as long as the chair remains neutral in setting the agenda
> > >>> and guiding the process, the chair should be allowed to have their
> > >>> own technical opinions, just like anyone else. Otherwise, you're
> > >>> just neutering the chair, and their incentive to participate is
> > >>> quite limited.
> > >>>
> > >>> In short: I see the convener as a largely logistical role, but the
> > >>> chair as more of a technical role.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sep 27, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Personally, I think "chair" should also be "meeting convener".
> > >>>> The chair should be largely administrative/neutral/meeting
> > >>>> organizer and runner. Convening meetings is a natural part of
> > >>>> that activity. The chair should not be promoting a particular
> > >>>> technical agenda (at least not as "chair").
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> As part of this discussion, it might be worthwhile to also bring
> > >>>>> up the auxiliary roles -- there's a bunch of things that happen
> > >>>>> behind the scenes to make the Forum function:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> - secretary
> > >>>>> - meeting convener
> > >>>>> - web maintainers (main site, meetings site, lists site)
> > >>>>> - svn / trac maintainer
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I mention this because, although I'm happy to continue in the
> > >>>>> role as secretary, a) if there's someone else burning to do that
> > >>>>> role, it would be fair to discuss it, and b) sometimes there has
> > >>>>> been confusion about exactly what the secretary is supposed to
> > >>>>> do. Maybe it would be useful to delineate the responsibilities
> > >>>>> of the auxiliary roles. Just like we discovered that we all
> > >>>>> didn't have the same conceptions of how the secretary applies
> > >>>>> the voting rules, perhaps there are other unwritten
> > >>>>> inconsistencies, too.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Brightwell, Ronald wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Greetings:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I wasn't able to attend the Forum meeting last week, so I don't
> > >>>>>> know if this came up or not, but given that it's election
> > >>>>>> season in the US and MPI 3.0 has been officially accepted, it
> > >>>>>> seems like a good time to discuss leadership of the Forum going
> > >>>>>> forward. I know several people who have been involved from a
> > >>>>>> leadership standpoint are in different situations now then they
> > >>>>>> were when the 3.0 process started, and their priorities and
> > >>>>>> commitments are different. I think it might be good to have an
> > >>>>>> open discussion about making changes to some of the leadership
> > >>>>>> roles in an effort to make sure that we start this next phase
> > >>>>>> in the best way possible.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -Ron
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> 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
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> 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
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________________
> __________
> > > ____ Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm
> > > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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)
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
> 
> --
> Anthony Skjellum, PhD
> Professor and Chair
> Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences Director, UAB Center for
> Information Assurance and Joint Forensics Research ("The Center")
> University of Alabama at Birmingham
> +1-(205)934-8657; FAX: +1- (205)934-5473
> 
> ___________________________________________
> CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and
> may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the
> sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person,
> use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium.
> 
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum