Skip to content

Meeting 2019 05 24

Jump to bottom
Josh Hursey edited this page May 30, 2019 · 2 revisions

Agenda

Notes

        Kathryn Mohror (LLNL)
	Geoffroy Vallee (Sylabs, Inc.)
	Barry Rountree (LLNL)
	Aurelien Bouteiller (UTK)
	Ken Raffenetti (ANL)
	Stephen Herbein (LLNL)
  • Reminder that discussion/decision regarding naming of reference implementation and standard is set for June 14
    • Aurelien reports that the reference implementation team prefers single name for both and is making efforts to distinguish between the two
    • External people (not reference implementation group) still prefer a name change of either the implementation or standard to clearly distinguish the two
    • Suggestion of code of conduct to encourage inclusivity
    • Perhaps require/encourage video for teleconf since face to face meetings are challenging
  • PR 183, official acceptance part is unclear and could be interpreted differently by different readers
    • Haven’t defined acceptance levels or what it means for a vote at different levels
    • Is anything being held up due for this PR?
    • Is work in PMIx 4 subject to this PR? We think not, that the efforts for PMIx 4 are abiding by the “old rules” and only the new version will be subject to these rules
    • General feeling that because nothing is being held up by this PR that we should spend more time on getting it right
    • No real disagreement, but really want to get it right
  • Templates PR
    • No objections
  • Interface Classes
    • Is there still disagreement on this?
    • Yes, do we still want to have the L1 class? (experimental) Does it serve the purpose we want?
      • Perhaps this should be left to the implementations and they can do it if they want and get their users to try it
      • What about people who don’t have their own implementation? Perhaps having L1 would encourage more people to participate.
      • Some folks have a feeling that nothing should be in the standard without strong stability guarantees
      • This idea is good for users who may not full appreciate what ‘experimental/L1’ means
      • What about two versions of the standard, one that does not include L1 (the official version that users would find first), and one that does include L1 that is a bit hidden on the web site, maybe with red warning text
    • Should comment on the ticket to ensure that discussion is captured and points of contention are noted
  • Working group: Implementation agnostic document, no update, Dave not here
  • Slicing/Grouping of functionality working group
    • Decided to work from ground up, from use cases
    • Lay out use cases and group them to see if there are common interfaces
    • Will go through the RFCs and pull out the use cases from there
    • Will use Josh’s wire-up use case as example starting place
    • For now they are going to drop the use cases in a google doc instead of using the use case issues framework that Josh set up
    • They are not going to meet next week because people are on vacation
  • Code of conduct
    • Are there good ones we can draw from? Anyone have suggestions?
    • Homework: people search around and make suggestions next time

Action Items

  • (Josh) Create use case for wireup with PR template

Home

Working Groups

Events

Helpful How To...

ASC Quarterly Meetings

ASC Monthly Meetings

Clone this wiki locally