Dear All,
Please find attached the GridPP Project Management Board
Meeting minutes for the 463rd to 464th meetings.
The latest minutes can be in:
http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/php/pmb/minutes.php?latest
as well as being listed with other minutes at:
http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/php/pmb/minutes.php
Cheers, Dave.
GridPP PMB Minutes 463 (30.05.2012)
=======================================
Present: Dave Britton (Chair), Pete Gronbech, Jeremy Coles, Andrew Sansum, Steve Lloyd, Robin
Middleton, Pete Clarke, Tony Doyle, Roger Jones, Dave Kelsey, John Gordon, Dave Colling (Suzanne
Scott - Minutes)
Apologies: Tony Cass, Neil Geddes
1. Short-term Travel
=====================
DB and DK had both circulated spreadsheets. DK had circulated information re the Visit Notices in
FY 11-12. DB circulated an initial estimate of PO-Limits and Allocations based algorithmically on
the FTE count at each institute. DK's list was within the PO limits which DB had devised. DB
would use DK's figures and adjust some of the limits. The allocation numbers would only go to
Fred Wickens and Stephen. We would use the figures internally and PG would monitor the spend
quarterly.
For other Institutes which didn't have GridPP staff, they should claim for one-off trips via RAL
rather than having a PO limit assigned to them. We would monitor as we go and spot anomalies as
they arose. At this stage all we needed was a sensible set of PO limits. DB hoped that the Visit
Notices could be submitted via the GridPP website.
2. Data Preservation and Access
================================
The PMB had exchanged an email conversation. DB had drafted a response document to STFC, for
use in Institutes as required. The document from the CAP meeting, chaired by PC, had been sent to
STFC. The STFC Data Policy had been on the web for 9 months. It was noted that we needed a
common set of arguments to highlight issues relevant to HEP. DB advised that his document was
not GridPP-specific, as we were only custodians of other people's data. The document could be
amended as appropriate. PC noted that we hadn't known that the STFC Data Policy had been
publicly available when the CAP guidelines were sent. JG thought that the umbrella STFC policy
was more about requiring projects to have a data policy. DC considered that the STFC Data Policy
was a strong document, and it re-affirmed the CMS approach. DC thought that we should take the
spirit of the Policy and interpret it appropriately - it had arisen from the RCUK Policy. PC
disagreed, noting that there was a danger that the current statements would be interpreted
literally so we needed to provide a robust response showing the impact on the HEP community. It
was impossible to publish raw data along with a first publication. TD advised that the Policy had
general principles of guidance. DC agreed, noting that there was scope for applying it
appropriately in the field. RJ disagreed, noting that if the Policy was taken literally and
legalistically, it would be impossible for us to adhere to it. TD considered that the Policy provided
a starting point for dialogue with the experiments - a reference point in trying to formulate policy
for others. PC noted that if common sense were applied to what was written, then that would be
fine. However, if this Policy fed-down into Grant Guidelines then there would be problems -
grants may not be awarded unless it was shown that we adhered to the Policy. DC disagreed,
noting that the Policy had general principles and recommendations for good practice. JG agreed
with this interpretation. DC noted we should advise people to write their own policy locally and
be involved in guiding that. DB considered that without a better interpretation at STFC, the Policy
could be interpreted at Institutes in different ways, therefore we did need to put forward our
point of view.
TD noted that each experiment had a policy in this area. Provided we had experiment statements,
then we could refer to those. PC was concerned that we do the preparation in order to cover all
bases - if we did have to tick boxes on application forms then we had to be prepared. DB noted
that at the time of applying for new grants we would make it clear that we adhere to international
collaboration guidelines, which are devised centrally by the experiments.
DB noted that he and SL needed to insert a paragraph at the beginning of the GridPP document,
noting that this was an experiment issue and it needed to be done by way of international
agreement, and we would adhere to that. The document he had devised would then be ready for
use as required.
3. VOMS Shambles - one
=======================
JC had circulated an email report.
See description under SI-6 below.
GriddPP was being blamed for the affair because it was perceived to be a GridPP VOMS. It was
believed that we could have done more to assist with this transition.
DB noted that the instructions received had certainly not been clear, even apart from the link
being incorrect. He himself had not managed to renew successfully.
DB wanted to thank JC for all of his action last week to mitigate the fiasco and to help people
through the process. JC advised that this would likely come round again at the same time next
year. DB noted that there was still a lot of clearing up to do and that the whole process had been a
shambles.
4. VOMS Shambes - two
======================
DB reported on NGS scenario-planning: what would they do if JISC did not fund them? Staff had
already been notified of potential redundancy. Did GridPP wish to fund VOMS at Manchester? DB
reported that there was no more funding available until 2015 for any new posts. Was anything
else possible at Manchester? JC noted that the work load depended on how many VOs were active
and joining. PG considered it should be a low load generally. DB advised that if a permanent post
on VOMS were to pass back to GridPP, VOMS would be better run at a larger site where there were
people who could provide better cover for it. He was not impressed at all by this recent fiasco.
Was there anyone within GridPP who had the specific skillset required? JC noted yes, at Glasgow.
JG asked if we needed a back-up VOMS as well? He was checking what other countries did. There
was an Italian prescription for doing this.
DB considered that this was not the right moment to make a decision on the future of VOMS,
however we did need to address the issue. He asked everyone to consider the issues involved and
this would be discussed again at the next meeting.
ACTION
463.1 ALL: to consider the current VOMS situation, and possibilities for supporting VOMS in the
future. To be discussed again.
463.2 JC/JG to brief DB on all of the issues surrounding VOMS so that DB could understand the
implications for supporting VOMS in the future.
5. AOCB
========
None.
STANDING ITEMS
==============
SI-1 Dissemination Report
--------------------------
No report from Neasan O'Neill had been received this week. SL reported that NO was working on
a CHEP news item. The TuringFest was proceeding ok. DB noted that he had spoken to Neasan
about this. He had agreed to give a talk. SL had received an email from the Science Museum
regarding their LHC exhibition next Autumn. He was discussing requirements. JC would talk to
his colleague in the same office regarding this. SL would forward the email to JC.
SI-2 ATLAS weekly review & plans
---------------------------------
RJ noted that there was nothing to report, things were quiet at present.
SI-3 CMS weekly review & plans
-------------------------------
DC had left the meeting.
SI-4 LHCb weekly review & plans
--------------------------------
PC noted nothing to report.
SI-5 User Co-ordination Issues
-------------------------------
There was no report.
SI-6 Production Manager's report
---------------------------------
JC reported as follows:
1) On Thursday 24th VOs hosted on the GridPP VOMS came up against a series of deadlines, one
related to the expiry of Acceptable Use Policies and another the default expiry date of user
memberships of a VO. The default dates for these deadlines was one year after a major VOMS
upgrade undertaken last year. That upgrade introduced database scheme changes and new fields
with these default values. The VOMS admin sent out notices to all VO-admins on 10th May
indicating a looming issue and with instructions to reduce potential problems. Many VO admins
missed the warning and subsequently, due to a VOMS bug, users were only given 24hrs notice of
their need to re-sign their VO AUP and even then for many their VO membership still expired. The
automatic message that went out to users contained an incorrect link that made taking action
confusing. A substantial number of VO users were suspended from their VOs, including in several
cases the VO admins. The most urgent re-enablement cases were dealt with promptly by manual
intervention after the event, but without doubt a lot of inconvenience has resulted. This is
embarrassing for GridPP as many consider that GridPP directly runs the service; though we do
not, we do have a responsibility to ensure a good overall service for 'our' user communities and
the significance of similar events that have impacted other NGIs was missed. The VOMS bug
affecting renewals was fixed in a mid-May VOMS release.
2) The GOCDB experienced an unexpected downtime between Friday 25.05.12 19.15 and
Monday 28.05.12 07.45 (all times UTC). The downtime was caused by an issue with the Oracle
database used to store the GOCDB data. This outage had various consequences including security
email lists being empty.
3) There has been confusion about recent ATLAS disk space requests and whether they related to
cvmfs local cache or temporary worker node space. There has also been a warning of increased
requirements: The requirements for MC12 digitisation and reconstruction are more stringent
than previous digitisation and reconstruction campaigns or Geant4 simulation. Additional pileup
inputs are needed, which can increase the network traffic between T2 and T1 site, increase the
usage of the PRODDISK space token and the local working directory. The vmen requirement for
these type of jobs is 3.8G.
4) T2K have been continuing to have proxy delegation problems but those of SNO+ have now
been resolved and were caused by command (user) errors.
SI-7 Tier-1 Manager's report
-----------------------------
AS reported that re Operations, things had been reasonably smooth, there had been a few minor
issues with the batch server but this was not affecting availability. They had done the transfer
manager upgrade for LHCb, which had gone well. They were doing the CMS one tomorrow, and
the ATLAS one on 7th June - these would be 2-hr interventions. AS reported that there were a
number of other upgrades to be done in June:
- CASTOR 2.1.11-9 update on 13th June (he would check with the experiments at the liaison
meeting)
- Oracle 11 update on 13th June (the LFC was not such a major issue, but the FTS was more
crucial)
- the site access router on 19th June (this would possibly be a 2-hr outage, perhaps less, they were
replacing the site access router with four individual boxes which should give more resilience)
- CASTOR Oracle 11 update on 27th June
AS advised that these upgrades all needed to be done, they were driven by the need to get to
Oracle 11.
Re procurement, AS would be meeting with Procurement tomorrow and discussing purchasing
constraints. New numbers for the next year were required.
SI-8 LCG Management Board Report
---------------------------------
The MB was due to take place next week.
REVIEW OF ACTIONS
=================
438.9 AS to contact relevant site managers to ask whether or not they would be interested in
having retired Tier-1 hardware - if a site were interested then they should submit a proposal as to
what they want and why.
448.4 ALL to send names/suggestions to DB regarding the replacement or otherwise for GP in the
User Co-ordinator position (not necessarily based at RAL).
458.2 AS to organise meetings with parties at RAL in relation to Capital spend and Capital
availability (and lack of Resource).
458.6 DK to close the loop with AS, DB, and Tony Medland regarding the Tier-1 allocation for
2012-13.
458.9 DK to act to recruit a replacement for Mingchao Ma as soon as possible.
460.1 PG to check with sites and the Tier-1, in relation to the £3million DRI grant, what had been
spent on UK companies particularly.
461.3 PG to follow-up the issue of the £19k underspend/£14k overspend with Imperial to ensure
this was sorted out with STFC.
462.1 AS to investigate the 20th June as a possiblity via Doodle for all to attend a F2F meeting, to
include the RAL people as well.
462.2 DB to compile a GridPP document to respond to EPSRC Policy Guidelines regarding data
preservation and access, and circulate to PMB for internal use. Done, action closed.
462.3 PC to contact JC to organise a half-day meeting internally in order to explore what the
common ground between DIRAC and GridPP might be.
ACTIONS AS OF 30.05.12
======================
438.9 AS to contact relevant site managers to ask whether or not they would be interested in
having retired Tier-1 hardware - if a site were interested then they should submit a proposal as to
what they want and why.
448.4 ALL to send names/suggestions to DB regarding the replacement or otherwise for GP in the
User Co-ordinator position (not necessarily based at RAL).
458.2 AS to organise meetings with parties at RAL in relation to Capital spend and Capital
availability (and lack of Resource).
458.6 DK to close the loop with AS, DB, and Tony Medland regarding the Tier-1 allocation for
2012-13.
458.9 DK to act to recruit a replacement for Mingchao Ma as soon as possible.
460.1 PG to check with sites and the Tier-1, in relation to the £3million DRI grant, what had been
spent on UK companies particularly.
461.3 PG to follow-up the issue of the £19k underspend/£14k overspend with Imperial to ensure
this was sorted out with STFC.
462.1 AS to investigate the 20th June as a possiblity via Doodle for all to attend a F2F meeting, to
include the RAL people as well.
462.3 PC to contact JC to organise a half-day meeting internally in order to explore what the
common ground between DIRAC and GridPP might be.
463.1 ALL: to consider the current VOMS situation, and possibilities for supporting VOMS in the
future. To be discussed again.
463.2 JC/JG to brief DB on all of the issues surrounding VOMS so that DB could understand the
implications for supporting VOMS in the future.
Due to next Monday's holiday, the next PMB would take place on Monday 11 June at 12.55 pm.
GridPP PMB Minutes 464 (11.06.2012)
=======================================
Present: Dave Britton (Chair), Pete Gronbech, Jeremy Coles, Andrew Sansum, Robin Middleton,
Pete Clarke, John Gordon, Dave Colling, Tony Cass (Suzanne Scott - Minutes)
Apologies: Tony Doyle, Roger Jones, Dave Kelsey, Steve Lloyd, Neil Geddes
1. NGS
=======
DB reported that the funding situation had been resolved - they had received funding at a reduced
level for 12 months from 01/08/2012 to 31/07/2013. NGS would continue to meet the EGI
international tasks and fund the CE however there was no funding for training, outreach, or VOMS.
DB noted that we needed to act on VOMS. In addition, DB reported that after the 12-month period
there were no plans for JISC to continue support for NGS, although STFC have to continue the
support for the international tasks within EGI. The EGI subscription had to be paid by JISC up
until the end of December this year. Payment of the EGI subscription in 2013 was unknown as
yet, various scenarios were possible.
DB advised that an e-Leadership Council (eLC) would be involved in funding for the future but
they appeared to have little knowledge of HEP.
2. VOMS
========
DB noted that we had originally handed-over the CA and VOMS to NGS but now needed to take
back VOMS. DB had circulated a proposal regarding the running of VOMS, and considered that
this did not generally equate to a full FTE of work. However when things went wrong, it was a lot
of work to sort out. DB considered that a better way of dealing with this was to use a distributed
VOMS system where two or more sites would share the load - this would mean sharing instances
but would result in better resilience.
DP proposed that, as we currently had 4 x 0.8FTE at Institutes, looking forward to GridPP5 we
could increase these to 1.0FTE and see if we could run a distributed VOMS in the UK, one at each
Tier-2 site. This did not require STFC approval, as we had reduced these posts ourselves in order
to save funds. JG asked if we really needed four VOMS? DB thought that technically we did need
two. JC advised that there were various technical issues and there was only one instance of VOMS
admin. DB wanted to refer this issue to JC and the Ops Team for discussion and their advice. It
would be good to host VOMS at each Tier-2 but technically was it the best solution? VOMS should
be sited at the large sites which could field problems if they arose - this would put GridPP back in
control of VOMS rather than being a 'middle-man'.
DB asked if the PMB could approve the proposal in principle and refer it to JC and the Ops Team to
advise re the technical ramifications of having 2 x or 4 x instances of VOMS. DB noted this was
urgent in relation to the JeS forms and it had to be addressed this week. JC advised that there
might be proxy and configuration issues.
DC noted that he supported DB's proposal in principle and that there should be an action on JC to
devise a good technical solution. DB asked that DC, JC and JG try to establish the best technical
solution and see if we could match this to the available FTE increases. Regarding the support of
NGS VOs, we would not abandon them if help was required. Manchester could still run VOMS and
part of that could be to run the NGS VOs, depending on the best technical fit. Also, how would the
change affect users?
ACTION
464.1 JC/DC/JG to establish the best technical solution to hosting VOMS at Tier-2 sites and see if
we could match this to the available 4 x FTE increases. JC to discuss at Ops Team. This was urgent
- a plan was required by the end of this week.
PC asked if there was a definite time-limit on what support we could provide? DB noted this
would be built-into GridPP4 and then we would address the issue for next time, but would need
STFC support to continue supporting VOMS. There were no objections to the proposal.
3. Tier-1 Review
=================
DB reported that he had decided to proceed with this on 20th June - it was the only time available
over the next 2-3 months. It was a good time to have a review exercise, and the short time to
prepare was also good as the review should be a lightweight review. Timing would be from 10.30
am until 4.00 pm. DB asked AS to structure the day, he did not want a lot of long presentations,
rather, it should comprise a look back at the things that had gone wrong; the status of CASTOR;
upcoming issues over the next 12 months - in summary: lessons learnt and a forward look, not in
depth post mortems. DB did not want the review to be an onerous process but key issues should
be discussed and clear conclusions reached. AS to circulate the Agenda. DC asked if there would
be 'phone connection? AS would check with Gareth and let him know.
ACTION
464.2 AS to devise and circulate the Agenda for the Tier-1 Review on 20th June - this should
comprise a look back at the things that had gone wrong; the status of CASTOR; upcoming issues
over the next 12 months - in summary: lessons learnt and a forward look - a lightweight Review.
4. AOCB
========
- DB advised that we needed a theme for the next GridPP Collaboration Meeting at Oxford - could
everyone think about an overarching theme and let PG/DB know. 'Evolution' was suggested, as
this could be applied to various ongoing issues.
- DB noted that we had to consider the future of DPM - JC to consider/assess the situation re the
UK taking on DPM in agreement with CERN and other nations. Was this viable? And what was the
alternative?
ACTION
464.3 JC to consider/assess the situation re the UK taking on DPM in agreement with CERN and
other nations. Was this viable? And what was the alternative?
STANDING ITEMS
==============
SI-1 Dissemination Report
--------------------------
SL had circulated a report from Neasan as follows:
1) CHEP news item published
2) Working on Tomato genome news item - this will appear sometime this week hopefully (week
starting 11th June). It will also get used on the EGI website and maybe iSGTW
3) SARoNGS news item also being worked on
4) CVMFS is now being tested for non-LHC experiments and RAL and CNAF are planning local-VO
repositories so will do news on that as well
5) Have been contacted about some citizen science stuff here at QMUL in the geography
department, following that up
6) Dave B is talking at EM360 (http://www.enterprisemanagement360.com/), I will be attending,
there is another free pass available if anyone is interested
7) Would be quite interested in the VO admin mailing list as a source of news, could I be kept in
the loop?
8) Is PerfSonar worth a news item? Who is the best contact JC?
9) Resurrection of Tier 1 hardware at other site could be a news item if it happens
10) C Walker has had some interest from Bio people at QMUL if possible will look into a Bio
workshop with them and other "locals"
11) Dave B and Pete C are meeting Jeremy Yates from UCL/DIRAC. Could I have more details/is
this worth keeping an eye on?
12) On the tomato genome work the first email I got about this was 20:53 on 31st of May. The
paper was received on the 17th of August 2011, accepted on the 3rd of April 2012 and published
online on the 30th of May 2012. This is a paper in Nature, if I had been given notice we could have
had a press release and a news item to coincide with it. I also know the press officer at Imperial
who worked on the IC release so we could probably have ensured a better grid bit went into that
release too
13) Wording about resource allocation for non-LHC experiments to appear at the top of this page
http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/support/:
"GridPP is primarily for use by the LHC experiments, however it also has an allocation of storage
and CPU available to other disciplines. These are provided on a site by site basis. If you wish to
investigate using these resources please contact [log in to unmask] with brief details of the kind of
research you do, your institute, your requirements and the application(s) you wish to use on the
infrastructure."
SI-2 ATLAS weekly review & plans
---------------------------------
RJ was not present.
SI-3 CMS weekly review & plans
-------------------------------
DC reported that there was currently a lot of pressure on the UK analysis side, negotiations were
ongoing. He had nothing major to report.
SI-4 LHCb weekly review & plans
--------------------------------
PC noted nothing of significance to report.
SI-6 Production Manager's Report
---------------------------------
JC reported as follows:
1) Power cuts are affecting Durham.
2) CMS are working with Brunel to get MUPJ properly running. Jobs were coming, but failing. It
was found that CMS was using a hard-coded path to glexec and this did not work for the EMI WNs.
3) The WLCG T2 availability and reliability figures for May are now available: http://grid-
monitoring.cern.ch/reports/2012/201205/wlcg/WLCG_Tier2_May2012.pdf. Two entries that are
being followed up (reliability:availability): QMUL (75%: 74%) and Durham (76%: 76%).
4) Current site priorities: Deployment wise we are asking those sites that can to deploy glexec
(we are about half way). Once the DRI kit is installed the strategy is to setup sites with perfSonar
with a target of all sites having made progress by the end of July (and 4 more sites by the end of
June).
5) Current core-tasks priorities:
Documentation provide VO (and VOMS) document updates
Monitoring Rank tools for a discussion in July
Accounting Confirm HS06 benchmarks of new kit and check publishing.
Staged rollout Initial feedback on EMI-2
Ticketing Assess tickets raised by UK but stalled
Core services perfsonar deployment and define testing matrix
Wider VOs Survey current issues
Regoinal tools Configure backup Nagios and also run smaller VO tests
Interoperation review latest EGI/EMI plans and NGS tools
Security Understand SSC5 and SSC6 requirements
SI-7 Tier-1 Manager's Report
-----------------------------
AS repoted as follows:
Fabric:
-------
1) We have been in discussion with the procurement team in preparation for start of the 2012
procurement round.
2) We believe that problems with DNS lookups of FNAL addresses seen last Friday (also seen at at
least one other site) are suspected to have been caused by an interaction between the local and
FNAL DNS services possibly relating to DNSSec. Changes have been made to the RAL DNS config to
resolve this.
3) There was a 15 minute network break on the SAR on Friday 8th 17:20.
4) The Site Access Router (SAR) will be replaced with new hardware on Tuesday 19th June. We
will schedule a 3 hour downtime.
5) An "in rack" PDU failed on Thursday 7th, this unfortunately caused a loss of power to a network
switch and a number of other operationally important systems.
Service:
-------
A number of problems in the days following the bank holiday weekend (the long weekend itself
went well)
1) Summary of operational issues and scheduled interventions is at:
https://www.gridpp.ac.uk/wiki/Tier1_Operations_Report_2012-06-06
2) CASTOR
a) Upgrade to CASTOR 2.1.11-9 on Wednesday (downtime). This is a preparatory upgrade to allow
an upgrade to ORACLE 11g to take place a few weeks later.
b) The transfer manager upgrades went well.
c) The CASTOR Information Provider (CIP) was upgraded (in order to improve the accuracy of the
data it provides).
3) An upgrade to the FTS and LFC back end database to ORACLE 11g will take place on
Wednesday
4) Problems with the RAL FTS transfers into CASTOR on Wednesday (apparent SRM errors) were
traced on Friday to the FTS itself. The cause was not identified but was resolved by a reboot of the
FTS agent host.
5) Routine UPS tests identified a problem preventing the diesel generator from being started.
Staff:
------
1) New system admin for the Fabric team drawing up job specification ongoing.
2) Database post - rejected us. We are now drawing up a new specification.
3) We expect to start a Year in Industry student in the Fabric team in July.
SI-8 LCG Management Board Report
---------------------------------
DB reported that items discussed included: the wLCG service report; the plan for a Tier-1 in
Korea; federated identity management for research collaborations, browser and non-browser
based pilots; and a talk had been given on networking as a 'core resource' (LHC OPN and network
as part of global resource planning). The TEG reports follow-up would be discussed next time.
REVIEW OF ACTIONS
=================
438.9 AS to contact relevant site managers to ask whether or not they would be interested in
having retired Tier-1 hardware - if a site were interested then they should submit a proposal as to
what they want and why. Ongoing.
448.4 ALL to send names/suggestions to DB regarding the replacement or otherwise for GP in the
User Co-ordinator position (not necessarily based at RAL). In progress.
458.2 AS to organise meetings with parties at RAL in relation to Capital spend and Capital
availability (and lack of Resource). Done, item closed.
458.6 DK to close the loop with AS, DB, and Tony Medland regarding the Tier-1 allocation for
2012-13. Ongoing.
458.9 DK to act to recruit a replacement for Mingchao Ma as soon as possible. In progress.
460.1 PG to check with sites and the Tier-1, in relation to the £3million DRI grant, what had been
spent on UK companies particularly. In progress.
461.3 PG to follow-up the issue of the £19k underspend/£14k overspend with Imperial to ensure
this was sorted out with STFC. Ongoing.
462.1 AS to investigate the 20th June as a possiblity via Doodle for all to attend a F2F meeting, to
include the RAL people as well. Done, item closed.
462.3 PC to contact JC to organise a half-day meeting internally in order to explore what the
common ground between DIRAC and GridPP might be. Done, item closed.
463.1 ALL: to consider the current VOMS situation, and possibilities for supporting VOMS in the
future. To be discussed again. Done, item closed.
463.2 JC/JG to brief DB on all of the issues surrounding VOMS so that DB could understand the
implications for supporting VOMS in the future. Done, item closed.
ACTIONS AS AT 11.06.12
======================
438.9 AS to contact relevant site managers to ask whether or not they would be interested in
having retired Tier-1 hardware - if a site were interested then they should submit a proposal as to
what they want and why.
448.4 ALL to send names/suggestions to DB regarding the replacement or otherwise for GP in the
User Co-ordinator position (not necessarily based at RAL).
458.6 DK to close the loop with AS, DB, and Tony Medland regarding the Tier-1 allocation for
2012-13.
458.9 DK to act to recruit a replacement for Mingchao Ma as soon as possible.
460.1 PG to check with sites and the Tier-1, in relation to the £3million DRI grant, what had been
spent on UK companies particularly.
461.3 PG to follow-up the issue of the £19k underspend/£14k overspend with Imperial to ensure
this was sorted out with STFC.
464.1 JC/DC/JG to establish the best technical solution to hosting VOMS at Tier-2 sites and see if
we could match this to the available 4 x 0.2FTE increases. JC to discuss at Ops Team. This was
urgent - a plan was required by the end of this week.
464.2 AS to devise and circulate the Agenda for the Tier-1 Review on 20th June - this should
comprise a look back at the things that had gone wrong; the status of CASTOR; upcoming issues
over the next 12 months - in summary: lessons learnt and a forward look - a lightweight Review.
464.3 JC to consider/assess the situation re the UK taking on DPM in agreement with CERN and
other nations. Was this viable? And what was the alternative?
The next PMB would take place on Monday 18th June; there would be the Tier-1 Review on 20th
June. The PMB following this would take place on Monday 25th June at 12.55 pm.
|
