[Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules

Kathryn Mohror kathryn at llnl.gov
Wed Apr 22 11:46:02 CDT 2015 

Hi all,

I like the new organization you have done. Also, the definitions you added should help new members get up to speed!

Some feedback:
2.1 #3 has awkward wording to me. I get what you are trying to say, but it's hard to parse and feels colloquial to me.
     - "Ensure a process that ensures..."
     - "... Document that is well thought through and allows..." It took me a while to realize that you were referring to "process" and not "Document" for "well though through and allows".
    
2.2.1 2nd paragraph: "(four weeks prior in case of votes for a final MPI Standard.." This is confusing later because there is a difference between a release candidate meeting and a final ratification meeting, and I’m not sure which you mean by "final MPI Standard" here. When I start reading the RCM rules, I am wondering why it says 2 weeks when we are discussing what I think is a (first) vote on a "final MPI standard." After reading more, I think you mean the FRM version of the Standard document, but it's not clear right away. Maybe changing it to "(four weeks prior in the case of final votes for an MPI Standard document..."?

Also, given that 2.2.4 4(f) allows for fast tracking the finalization of a new standard version, do we want to have a 4 week lead time for the RCM as well? To give more time to find any bugs/issues? It seems fast to me to allow the fast track process with only 2 weeks lead time.

2.2.4 7(d) I would make this a footnote or something. It seems out of place as part of the "rules" for the process.

Kathryn
_________________________________________________________________
Kathryn Mohror, kathryn at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ 
Scalability Team @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-forum [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On
> Behalf Of Bland, Wesley
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:56 AM
> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
> 
> 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=mc87e1ef49d7e73dd9e22a
> e9
> > 4a624
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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