[Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re: Dates for March Meeting
jeff.science at gmail.com
Tue Dec 3 09:55:45 CST 2013
If we schedule all the RMA WG sessions on Monday and Tuesday, crazy
people can take the redeye east and arrive for the start of the SHMEM
workshop (Tuesday is just tutorials).
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Barrett, Brian W <bwbarre at sandia.gov> wrote:
> I'm undecided which one I'll attend, but Sandia will have a representative
> at the March meeting. I'm not sure it's worth the pain of moving the
> Forum meeting at this point.
> On 12/2/13 6:37 PM, "Jeff Hammond" <jeff.science at gmail.com> wrote:
>>Jim and I are on the OpenSHMEM agenda. Probably Barrett is going, too.
>>That's a significant portion of the RMA WG.
>>Given the OpenSHMEM workshop has already been rescheduled once, I really
>>doubt they can move, nor would they care to for our sake.
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 5:55 PM, "Schulz, Martin" <schulzm at llnl.gov> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> The dates for our meeting in March had been set after the September
>>>meeting to March 3-6 and we declared those as final a few weeks after
>>> However, Rich sent me email today pointing out the following conflict:
>>>> It turns out that the March MPI Forum meeting end up right on top of
>>>>the OpenSHMEM workshop, on the other side of the country. I expect
>>>>this conflict will impact those in the RMA working group. Do you want
>>>>to look into possibly moving the Forum forward or back by a week ? I
>>>>am guessing it is easier for us to move than for the OpenSHMEM meeting,
>>>>given the numbers of people involved.
>>> Moving it a week later doesn't work (due to some already scheduled DOE
>>>meetings), but a week earlier could work. We did, however, already fix
>>>the March dates so people may have already tickets. Could you please let
>>>me know if this is the case for any of you? Also, for the RMA group -
>>>how much of a conflict is this and will this reduce attendance
>>> In general, I am hesitant to switch meeting dates after they have been
>>>fixed, but if it is advantageous for the meeting and no one would be
>>>negatively impacted (and we would need pretty much unanimous consensus),
>>>we can take this into considerations.
>>> 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
>>mpi-forum mailing list
>>mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> Brian W. Barrett
> Scalable System Software Group
> Sandia National Laboratories
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
jeff.science at gmail.com
More information about the mpi-forum