[Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules

Schulz Martin schulzm at llnl.gov
Sun Apr 26 15:47:45 CDT 2015 

Hi all,

Thanks to all who already gave feedback on the new proposed voting rules
document. An updated version is attached.

The color key is as follows:
- Black = Original document
- Red = Main changes to include rules for the ratification of a standard
document
- Blue = Suggested changes to reflect the “shortcut” option
- Green = Additional suggested changes, incl. the change to 4 weeks

Also, as mentioned in the last email, Jeff and I setup a TelCon tomorrow
(Monday) 8am PDT for those who would like to discuss the document further.
The login instructions are below.

Thanks!

Martin


________________________________________________________________________
Martin Schulz, schulzm at llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/
CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA





On 4/22/15, 1:58 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=mc87e1ef49d7e73dd9e22ae94a62
>4
>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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: procedures.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 184383 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20150426/dc025ca7/attachment-0001.pdf>

More information about the mpi-forum mailing list