[Mpi3-rma] Updated MPI-3 RMA proposal 1

Torsten Hoefler htor at illinois.edu
Sun Jun 20 15:32:43 CDT 2010

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 03:24:14PM -0500, Pavan Balaji wrote:
> On 06/20/2010 03:20 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
>> We're not dropping it, we're just not forcing it all into one. The issue
>> is that we have two people who seems vehemently opposed. If we lump it
>> into one proposal 1 (the name is really bad :), then we don't give them
>> the chance to argue against it separately. If they wanted to rally
>> against it (and we had several rallies of this kind, just remember the
>> const proposal or the dist graph stuff), then they would need to kill
>> proposal 1 as a whole including all non-controversial things. I don't
>> think this would be fair. 
> Each item will be discussed separately. So, if the Forum doesn't like  
> allflushall, it'll be dropped (not just proposal 1; dropped fully).  
> That's why I don't understand why proposal 1 cannot have it but proposal  
> 2 can (or proposal 3 or proposal 15).
What happens is a bit fuzzy. I wanted to put this in a separate
proposal. But if we're discussing everything separately anyway, then it
would not be different. I think we should discuss a conceptual level at
the full forum. And conceptually, allflushall is an extension to
flushall (collective specification). 

I think the next step should be the discussion/straw vote at the full
Forum (I hope everybody will come or call in at the next meeting so that
we have a sufficient quorum) and then we can decide where to put it :).
I don't really care too much as long as we define something reasonable.

All the Best,

 bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ -----
Torsten Hoefler         | Modeling and Simulation Lead
Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois
1205 W Clark Street     | Urbana, IL, 61801
NCSA Building           | +01 (217) 244-7736

More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list