[Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules

[Rolf Rabenseifner]

If the changes would have been smaller, then our March meeting
would have finalized MPI-3.1 - I'm pretty sure.

Yes, I also feel that there should be a short path.
For this, the voting slots for RCM may be on the 3rd day,
but should be movable to the last day and substitute the FRM
voting slot.

Rolf

----- Original Message -----
> From: "schulzm" <schulzm at llnl.gov>
> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:06:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules

> Hi Aurelien, all,
> 
> Jeff and I have discussed this as well, but thought the ratification
> process is important enough to also warrant the two vote rule, as do
> regular text items. The reasoning was that there will always be some
> changes in the RCM (even if they are minor) and this would give people a
> time to think about them. However, that is certainly a good point for
> discussion to allow a quick path if there are really no changes pending
> (something like allowing the RCM and FRM to be at the same meeting with
> the two votes separated by at least one night). How does the rest of the
> group feel about this?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/14/15, 6:00 AM, "Aurélien Bouteiller" <bouteill at icl.utk.edu> wrote:
> 
>>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
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Room 1.307)