[Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules

Bland, Wesley wesley.bland at intel.com
Wed Apr 22 08:55:49 CDT 2015 

Minor grammatical fix:

If, after the ballot, the list of all still-unresolved issues is empty and the forum was able to resolve all other minor issues, such **as** formatting and whitespace problems, spelling errors, and other typos...

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 3:58 AM, Schulz Martin <schulzm at llnl.gov> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Attached is a new version of the rules document, which includes the
> feedback so far (changes of changes are in blue). This new version does
> allow for a shortcut (but under very severe limits) and also always
> requires two votes. Let us know what you think.
> 
> As mentioned before, we would like publish the final version with all
> feedback by May 4th - within four weeks of the forum - with the goal to
> pass it in June. So, if there are any concerns or comments, please let us
> (Jeff and Martin) know. Also, we’ll hold a webex discussion on these rules
> on April 27th at 8am PDT. Here is the dial-in information:
> 
> Webex link: 
> https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?MTID=mc87e1ef49d7e73dd9e22ae94a624
> dba2
> Webex password: mpi
> 
> Anyone interested is welcome to join,
> 
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/14/15, 10:17 AM, "Steven Oyanagi" <sko at cray.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> After some thought, I think the Forum should always have two votes for the
>> final draft of the standard.  As Martin previously pointed out, the
>> ratification process is important enough to warrant the two vote rule
>> similar to regular text changes.  Two votes would allow more members to
>> vote on the final draft.  As long as they don’t miss two meetings in a row
>> they would get to vote on some form of the final draft.  A number of
>> member institutions don’t go or rarely go to the international meeting so
>> they could potentially miss a single final ratification vote.  If I recall
>> correctly, the final vote for the MPI 3.0 standard was scheduled for
>> meeting in Europe, though for some reason that I don’t recall the final
>> vote occurred by e-mail.
>> 
>> If the Forum does decide to have a “fast path” approval process, a vote
>> should be required to use the fast path and it should not be at the same
>> meeting as the single standard ratification vote.
>> 	- Steve
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner at hlrs.de>
>> Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 11:44 AM
>> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
>> 
>>> 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 ﯯ(0)711/685-65530
>>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ﯯ(0)711 / 685-65832
>>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner
>>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpi-forum mailing list
>>> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>> 
> 
> <procedures.pdf>_______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

More information about the mpi-forum mailing list