[Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules

[Aurélien Bouteiller]

It seems that the new rules make the preparation of the final version always require 2 meetings. We should keep the possibility open for a 1 meeting final version, for the case when all tickets have been voted and implemented long ago and we only need to vote, like it happened for 3.0. One could argue that the last release meeting where we had still semantic patches on our plate is the outlier rather than the norm.

Aurelien

--
Aurélien Bouteiller ~ https://icl.cs.utk.edu/~bouteill/

> Le 14 avr. 2015 à 01:26, Schulz Martin <schulzm at llnl.gov> a écrit :
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> Sorry, I should have made this clear - our proposal would be to consider
> the March meeting a successful RCM and then, if the rules are accepted,
> hold the Chicago meeting in July as the FRM.
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/13/15, 8:16 AM, "Steven Oyanagi" <sko at cray.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> A possibly dumb question, but one that needs clarification for those of us
>> who were not at the March MPI Forum meeting.  The new voting rules propose
>> a ³Release Candidate Meeting (RCM)² and a ³Final Ratification Meeting².
>> For MPI-3.1, is the March meeting considered to be the ³Release Candidate²
>> meeting and we are on track to have final ratification of MPI-3.1 in June,
>> or will June be the RCM and final ratification would occur in September?
>> 	- Steve
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Shulz <schulzm at llnl.gov>
>> Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
>> Date: Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:13 AM
>> To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
>> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As discussed at the last forum meeting, Jeff and I drafted an updated
>>> version of the MPI rules/voting document that we want to propose to the
>>> MPI forum and that, if accepted, is intended to cover the MPI 3.1
>>> ratification. The document is attached and all
>>> changes compared to the previous document are marked in red. The idea
>>> was to basically write up the process we followed at the last meeting and
>>> that most seemed to like. Questions and comments are, of course, welcome
>>> our intent is to publish a final version
>>> with comments included by May 4th, i.e., 4 weeks before the June forum,
>>> and then put this document up for a vote at the meeting.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20150414/cd850be1/attachment-0001.pgp>