Discussion and reporting overlap/repetition is a valid concern that I also raised; the meetings will likely have to adapt as we gain experience with a multi-pronged approach. The area distinctions being drawn are:
- Operational (running what we have);
- Development (improving what we have);
- Future/speculative (testing/understanding what we might have).
There are no hard lines between areas and boundaries will move as test/development 'technical' work becomes more widely adopted. It would be useful to clarify where we expect certain activities to be placed. For example at HEPSYSMAN on Wednesday there was discussion about configuration templates (producing a core, sharing approaches etc.) that could fit under operations or development areas. Monitoring and accounting has aspects in all three.
If the three bulleted areas broadly corresponded with the existing meetings on Tuesdays (ops), Wednesdays (storage) and biweekly Fridays (cloud) what topics would we like to see covered/tracked in each? If we can come up with an agreed (initial) breakdown I think it will help us move forwards more smoothly.
On 7 Jun 2013, at 11:51, Ewan MacMahon wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wahid Bhimji
>> Generally I like the idea of a gridpp technical stream . However I have
>> the following comments
>> 2. Similarly I would hope there was a way to merge the "storage" and
>> "technical" meetings - we already talk about broader topics on wed and
>> have talked before about rebadging _that_ meeting as "technical" rather
>> than "storage" .
> I'm not sure - when we talked about this at the Glasgow meeting
> the intention was very much that the Friday meeting would be more
> 'future technologies' - the kind of thing (like cloud) that's a
> matter of exploring new ground rather than running the production
> systems. There's certainly been some of that in the storage meetings,
> but it's not always been a comfortable fit, and I wonder if it might
> make more sense to split them.
> If the Friday slot doesn't work out, we could always consider other
> options, maybe Wednesday being production focussed 10:00-10:30, then
> spinning off to more speculative stuff afterwards (which is partly what
> it's actually been doing in practice).