May 2012 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
by Anthony Skjellum 30 May '12

30 May '12

Folks, I enjoyed the meeting in Tsukuba very much, and the discussions were illuminating! I am personally very disappointed that we are not orthogonalizing the design of MPI-3 to have non-blocking collective operations for all collective operations. This seems like a very short-sighted decision, and we will have to revisit. Orthogonalization of design is what designers of systems like this do. To complement that, we need builders of big parallel codes and products to come to the meetings, and make sure we meet their needs, not interpreted as second or third hand. Given all the efforts to look at MPI for exascale going on, recognition of non-blocking operations to support overlapping of communication, computation, and I/O, as well as allow scheduling to be divorced from the user thread, and reduce polling (and reduce jitter) appear crucial. A design rule proposed for MPI-3.x, x>0: We decide to support first-class non-blocking collective operations. It spreads to the entire standard. We then make exceptions on how to handle cases that might not make sense. The design principle drives a global change, and then each operation gets validated as relevant. Exceptions limiting that choice are made based on logic, not implementation effort or one-off anecdotal experience to the contrary. We should not have selective non-blocking operations, selectively leave split phase here and there, and tell users that they can have Comm_idup () which is superb of course, but not Comm_isplit(), which is even more useful IMHO. I use that just as an example of lack of orthogonality, please don't focus on this point. Even though individual arguments about past success/failure with a particular function should not defeat orthogonality as the design principle. We are after all trying to enable a concept to work, and allow applications to exploit that concept: same as with I/O as a concept, 1-sided as a concept, collective operations as a concept. I propose that the entire December meeting be focused on design, design orthogonalization, and big-picture roadmap/plans for MPI beyond 3.0, not to incremental additions. We need to decide that soon, so we recognize that July and September meetings are close outs on MPI 3.0, and business as currently done. And it starts with a short post-mortem on MPI 3.0, what we achieved, what the impact is of the new changes, what the timespan is before users get 3.0 and etc. Why go forward with MPI 3.x, x>0 without deeper agreed-on, enforced principles driving our further work? While it is intellectually very interesting, aren't we all trying to support users and systems and roadmaps with a standard? 1) Make MPI ready for exascale (such as: predictability, scalability, low jitter, fault resilience) 2) Work with modern programming languages in a first-class way (e.g., C++, not just Fortran latest and C89) 3) Drive to broader applicability to HPC and beyond 4) Being fully 64-bit clean 5) Remove functionality, if appropriate, that impairs these goals Note: Some of the work of the last 4 years fits obviously here, though not yet accepted, such as FT, or collective non-blocking I/O. Other items that appear very interesting were simply delayed due to fatigue or who was able to be present this week to vote. In two years (or whatever the appropriate span of time) for 3.x, we should work these big pictures, driven by high-level design decisions that inform classes of functionality, rather than just individual functions. Regards, Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mohamad Chaarawi" <chaarawi(a)hdfgroup.org> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:34:44 PM Subject: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 Hi All, I'm still trying to figure out why ticket 273 was voted down. At the last meeting, I would say there was a consensus that the non blocking collective I/O ticket (273) was ready to be voted in. Nobody expressed an objection after me removing the shared file pointer nbc routines and re-reading the draft. All the I/O chapter committee reviewed the draft and commented on the ticket that it looks good. At the Japan meeting, we get 8 yes , 2 nos, and 6 abstains, which under the new rules marks the ticket as failed. None from our organization could attend the meeting to really understand what the 2 no votes were for, and why 6 organizations abstained. If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand what is being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. If the abstains where for something else, then the votes should be NO. So could someone mention why this was voted down? Thanks, Mohamad _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Anthony Skjellum, PhD Professor and Chair Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences Director, UAB Center for Information Assurance and Joint Forensics Research ("The Center") University of Alabama at Birmingham +1-(205)934-8657; FAX: +1- (205)934-5473 ___________________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Bronis R. de Supinski 30 May '12

30 May '12

I disagree. They are able to enter the room; they can leave it. More importantly, if we had anyone who had such impairments, I am certain that we would allow them to voice themselves as "not present". On Wed, 30 May 2012, Jeff Hammond wrote: > I would like it noted that the following is extremely unfriendly to > anyone with mobility problems and probably not ADA-compliant. > > "If they did not want their vote effectively to be "no" then they > should have left the room." > > Jeff > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski <bronis(a)llnl.gov> wrote: >> >> All: >> >> Hmm. Quite the controversy. However, the rules as enforced >> in Japan are consistent with my understanding of what they >> have always been. More importantly, they are consistent >> with the wording in the bylaws. Here is what Jeff quoted: >> >> >> ï¿½ ï¿½a simple majority is defined as a simple majority >> ï¿½ ï¿½of those present and eligible to vote. >> >> Those who abstained were present and eligible to vote. >> They did not vote yes. The effect is that they voted >> "no" by this definition. If they did not want their >> vote effectively to be "no" then they should have left >> the room. I recall several instances in which someone >> was out of the room (perhaps even momentarily for a bio >> break) and Jeff recorded their vote as "not present". >> See the definition above -- they then do not count as >> present so they do not figure into the required "yes" count. >> >> As I stated, my understanding of the rules is consistent >> with the interpretation used in Japan. I would object to >> any other interpretation since the by-laws are actually >> clear on this point. I agree that the by-laws should be >> clear in general; while I think they are clear, I would >> not object to a clarifying statement being added to the >> effect that "abstentions are effectively negative votes." >> I think we have many other issues that should be made >> concrete in the by-laws and this is the least important. >> What is required to pass a first reading is probably the >> most obvious issue. >> >> Bronis >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: >> >>> Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 12:12:26 >>> >>>> On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an >>>>>> indication >>>>>> that this bylaw change was half baked. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Especially when the meeting is attended by so few people due to the >>>>> location. ï¿½It seems like a weasel tactic to pick a remote location to >>>>> change the by-laws with a single vote. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To be clear, the process document states: >>>> >>>> ï¿½ ï¿½For the purposes of voting, a simple majority is defined as a simple >>>> ï¿½ ï¿½majority of those present and eligible to vote. >>>> In the context of the document, the phrase "simple majority" is used to >>>> describe what is needed for ballots to pass; this sentence is attempting >>>> to >>>> define that phrase. ï¿½So even though the above sentence looks like a >>>> circular >>>> definition, I think it's really an open-ended definition (e.g., a google >>>> search >>>> for "simple majority definition" turns up both definitions). >>>> >>>> I was not there and don't know *exactly* what happened, so I'll refrain >>>> from >>>> commenting further. >>> >>> >>> If the bylaws are vague, we should clarify them. ï¿½We should not however >>> reinterpret them at each meeting, and should all agree on a proper >>> interpretation and stick to it, such that ambiguity is removed going >>> forward. ï¿½Allowing our bylaws to be vague enough to afford a >>> re-interpretation at each meeting does nobody any good. >>> >>> -Fab >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > Argonne Leadership Computing Facility > University of Chicago Computation Institute > jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond > https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Bronis R. de Supinski 30 May '12

30 May '12

Because "sum>0" is a poor measure for something that is ready for standardization. ISO standards require unanimity. While that requirement is perhaps overly strict, it is much better than "more in favor than those who already recognize problems in the current form". On Wed, 30 May 2012, Jeff Hammond wrote: > If abstain=no then why bother having the category at all? Are we > trying to implement abstain="polite no" and no="cruel no"? > > Why don't we vote with +1, 0 and -1, where sum>0 passes? > > Jeff > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski <bronis(a)llnl.gov> wrote: >> >> All: >> >> Hmm. Quite the controversy. However, the rules as enforced >> in Japan are consistent with my understanding of what they >> have always been. More importantly, they are consistent >> with the wording in the bylaws. Here is what Jeff quoted: >> >> >> ï¿½ ï¿½a simple majority is defined as a simple majority >> ï¿½ ï¿½of those present and eligible to vote. >> >> Those who abstained were present and eligible to vote. >> They did not vote yes. The effect is that they voted >> "no" by this definition. If they did not want their >> vote effectively to be "no" then they should have left >> the room. I recall several instances in which someone >> was out of the room (perhaps even momentarily for a bio >> break) and Jeff recorded their vote as "not present". >> See the definition above -- they then do not count as >> present so they do not figure into the required "yes" count. >> >> As I stated, my understanding of the rules is consistent >> with the interpretation used in Japan. I would object to >> any other interpretation since the by-laws are actually >> clear on this point. I agree that the by-laws should be >> clear in general; while I think they are clear, I would >> not object to a clarifying statement being added to the >> effect that "abstentions are effectively negative votes." >> I think we have many other issues that should be made >> concrete in the by-laws and this is the least important. >> What is required to pass a first reading is probably the >> most obvious issue. >> >> Bronis >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: >> >>> Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 12:12:26 >>> >>>> On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an >>>>>> indication >>>>>> that this bylaw change was half baked. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Especially when the meeting is attended by so few people due to the >>>>> location. ï¿½It seems like a weasel tactic to pick a remote location to >>>>> change the by-laws with a single vote. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To be clear, the process document states: >>>> >>>> ï¿½ ï¿½For the purposes of voting, a simple majority is defined as a simple >>>> ï¿½ ï¿½majority of those present and eligible to vote. >>>> In the context of the document, the phrase "simple majority" is used to >>>> describe what is needed for ballots to pass; this sentence is attempting >>>> to >>>> define that phrase. ï¿½So even though the above sentence looks like a >>>> circular >>>> definition, I think it's really an open-ended definition (e.g., a google >>>> search >>>> for "simple majority definition" turns up both definitions). >>>> >>>> I was not there and don't know *exactly* what happened, so I'll refrain >>>> from >>>> commenting further. >>> >>> >>> If the bylaws are vague, we should clarify them. ï¿½We should not however >>> reinterpret them at each meeting, and should all agree on a proper >>> interpretation and stick to it, such that ambiguity is removed going >>> forward. ï¿½Allowing our bylaws to be vague enough to afford a >>> re-interpretation at each meeting does nobody any good. >>> >>> -Fab >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > Argonne Leadership Computing Facility > University of Chicago Computation Institute > jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond > https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Jeff Hammond 30 May '12

30 May '12

I would like it noted that the following is extremely unfriendly to anyone with mobility problems and probably not ADA-compliant. "If they did not want their vote effectively to be "no" then they should have left the room." Jeff On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski <bronis(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > > All: > > Hmm. Quite the controversy. However, the rules as enforced > in Japan are consistent with my understanding of what they > have always been. More importantly, they are consistent > with the wording in the bylaws. Here is what Jeff quoted: > > > ï¿½ ï¿½a simple majority is defined as a simple majority > ï¿½ ï¿½of those present and eligible to vote. > > Those who abstained were present and eligible to vote. > They did not vote yes. The effect is that they voted > "no" by this definition. If they did not want their > vote effectively to be "no" then they should have left > the room. I recall several instances in which someone > was out of the room (perhaps even momentarily for a bio > break) and Jeff recorded their vote as "not present". > See the definition above -- they then do not count as > present so they do not figure into the required "yes" count. > > As I stated, my understanding of the rules is consistent > with the interpretation used in Japan. I would object to > any other interpretation since the by-laws are actually > clear on this point. I agree that the by-laws should be > clear in general; while I think they are clear, I would > not object to a clarifying statement being added to the > effect that "abstentions are effectively negative votes." > I think we have many other issues that should be made > concrete in the by-laws and this is the least important. > What is required to pass a first reading is probably the > most obvious issue. > > Bronis > > > > > > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: > >> Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 12:12:26 >> >>> On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote: >>> >>>>> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an >>>>> indication >>>>> that this bylaw change was half baked. >>>> >>>> >>>> Especially when the meeting is attended by so few people due to the >>>> location. ï¿½It seems like a weasel tactic to pick a remote location to >>>> change the by-laws with a single vote. >>> >>> >>> >>> To be clear, the process document states: >>> >>> ï¿½ ï¿½For the purposes of voting, a simple majority is defined as a simple >>> ï¿½ ï¿½majority of those present and eligible to vote. >>> In the context of the document, the phrase "simple majority" is used to >>> describe what is needed for ballots to pass; this sentence is attempting >>> to >>> define that phrase. ï¿½So even though the above sentence looks like a >>> circular >>> definition, I think it's really an open-ended definition (e.g., a google >>> search >>> for "simple majority definition" turns up both definitions). >>> >>> I was not there and don't know *exactly* what happened, so I'll refrain >>> from >>> commenting further. >> >> >> If the bylaws are vague, we should clarify them. ï¿½We should not however >> reinterpret them at each meeting, and should all agree on a proper >> interpretation and stick to it, such that ambiguity is removed going >> forward. ï¿½Allowing our bylaws to be vague enough to afford a >> re-interpretation at each meeting does nobody any good. >> >> -Fab >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Bronis R. de Supinski 30 May '12

30 May '12

All: I also meant to address another question that arose. While I have missed some meetings, at no meeting at which I was present to a ticket pass under the apparent widespread misinterpretation of the rules. If one had, I would have objected -- first, because that is not what the by-laws say; and second, because adding something to the standard that cannot even get a simple majority of yes votes of THOSE PRESENT is an inherently stupid idea (adding it; not necessarily the proposal itself). I do not recall a particularly close vote when I was present although I might be mistaken. The only votes that I recall that were close were straw votes, which do not count. Many of those have been close. Bronis On Wed, 30 May 2012, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > > All: > > Hmm. Quite the controversy. However, the rules as enforced > in Japan are consistent with my understanding of what they > have always been. More importantly, they are consistent > with the wording in the bylaws. Here is what Jeff quoted: > > a simple majority is defined as a simple majority > of those present and eligible to vote. > > Those who abstained were present and eligible to vote. > They did not vote yes. The effect is that they voted > "no" by this definition. If they did not want their > vote effectively to be "no" then they should have left > the room. I recall several instances in which someone > was out of the room (perhaps even momentarily for a bio > break) and Jeff recorded their vote as "not present". > See the definition above -- they then do not count as > present so they do not figure into the required "yes" count. > > As I stated, my understanding of the rules is consistent > with the interpretation used in Japan. I would object to > any other interpretation since the by-laws are actually > clear on this point. I agree that the by-laws should be > clear in general; while I think they are clear, I would > not object to a clarifying statement being added to the > effect that "abstentions are effectively negative votes." > I think we have many other issues that should be made > concrete in the by-laws and this is the least important. > What is required to pass a first reading is probably the > most obvious issue. > > Bronis > > > > > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: > >> Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 12:12:26 >> >>> On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote: >>> >>>>> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an indication >>>>> that this bylaw change was half baked. >>>> >>>> Especially when the meeting is attended by so few people due to the >>>> location. It seems like a weasel tactic to pick a remote location to >>>> change the by-laws with a single vote. >>> >>> >>> To be clear, the process document states: >>> >>> For the purposes of voting, a simple majority is defined as a simple >>> majority of those present and eligible to vote. >>> In the context of the document, the phrase "simple majority" is used to >>> describe what is needed for ballots to pass; this sentence is attempting to >>> define that phrase. So even though the above sentence looks like a circular >>> definition, I think it's really an open-ended definition (e.g., a google search >>> for "simple majority definition" turns up both definitions). >>> >>> I was not there and don't know *exactly* what happened, so I'll refrain from >>> commenting further. >> >> If the bylaws are vague, we should clarify them. We should not however reinterpret them at each meeting, and should all agree on a proper interpretation and stick to it, such that ambiguity is removed going forward. Allowing our bylaws to be vague enough to afford a re-interpretation at each meeting does nobody any good. >> >> -Fab >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Jeff Hammond 30 May '12

30 May '12

If abstain=no then why bother having the category at all? Are we trying to implement abstain="polite no" and no="cruel no"? Why don't we vote with +1, 0 and -1, where sum>0 passes? Jeff On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski <bronis(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > > All: > > Hmm. Quite the controversy. However, the rules as enforced > in Japan are consistent with my understanding of what they > have always been. More importantly, they are consistent > with the wording in the bylaws. Here is what Jeff quoted: > > > ï¿½ ï¿½a simple majority is defined as a simple majority > ï¿½ ï¿½of those present and eligible to vote. > > Those who abstained were present and eligible to vote. > They did not vote yes. The effect is that they voted > "no" by this definition. If they did not want their > vote effectively to be "no" then they should have left > the room. I recall several instances in which someone > was out of the room (perhaps even momentarily for a bio > break) and Jeff recorded their vote as "not present". > See the definition above -- they then do not count as > present so they do not figure into the required "yes" count. > > As I stated, my understanding of the rules is consistent > with the interpretation used in Japan. I would object to > any other interpretation since the by-laws are actually > clear on this point. I agree that the by-laws should be > clear in general; while I think they are clear, I would > not object to a clarifying statement being added to the > effect that "abstentions are effectively negative votes." > I think we have many other issues that should be made > concrete in the by-laws and this is the least important. > What is required to pass a first reading is probably the > most obvious issue. > > Bronis > > > > > > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: > >> Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 12:12:26 >> >>> On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote: >>> >>>>> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an >>>>> indication >>>>> that this bylaw change was half baked. >>>> >>>> >>>> Especially when the meeting is attended by so few people due to the >>>> location. ï¿½It seems like a weasel tactic to pick a remote location to >>>> change the by-laws with a single vote. >>> >>> >>> >>> To be clear, the process document states: >>> >>> ï¿½ ï¿½For the purposes of voting, a simple majority is defined as a simple >>> ï¿½ ï¿½majority of those present and eligible to vote. >>> In the context of the document, the phrase "simple majority" is used to >>> describe what is needed for ballots to pass; this sentence is attempting >>> to >>> define that phrase. ï¿½So even though the above sentence looks like a >>> circular >>> definition, I think it's really an open-ended definition (e.g., a google >>> search >>> for "simple majority definition" turns up both definitions). >>> >>> I was not there and don't know *exactly* what happened, so I'll refrain >>> from >>> commenting further. >> >> >> If the bylaws are vague, we should clarify them. ï¿½We should not however >> reinterpret them at each meeting, and should all agree on a proper >> interpretation and stick to it, such that ambiguity is removed going >> forward. ï¿½Allowing our bylaws to be vague enough to afford a >> re-interpretation at each meeting does nobody any good. >> >> -Fab >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
by Bronis R. de Supinski 30 May '12

30 May '12

Not being in the room does not mean abstain, it means not present. On Wed, 30 May 2012, Jeff Hammond wrote: > Given that not being in the room means abstain, this new rule gives me > a strong incentive to bake laxative-laced brownies when #281 goes up > for a second vote. > > In other words, I agree that the new rules are stupid and that Mohamad > is quite justified in being annoyed at his ticket being voted down > since it was clearly favored by everyone who cared to voice an > opinion. > > Jeff > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> wrote: >> On May 30, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote: >> >>> If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand what is being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. >> >> +1 >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > > -- > Jeff Hammond > Argonne Leadership Computing Facility > University of Chicago Computation Institute > jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond > https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Bronis R. de Supinski 30 May '12

30 May '12

All: Hmm. Quite the controversy. However, the rules as enforced in Japan are consistent with my understanding of what they have always been. More importantly, they are consistent with the wording in the bylaws. Here is what Jeff quoted: a simple majority is defined as a simple majority of those present and eligible to vote. Those who abstained were present and eligible to vote. They did not vote yes. The effect is that they voted "no" by this definition. If they did not want their vote effectively to be "no" then they should have left the room. I recall several instances in which someone was out of the room (perhaps even momentarily for a bio break) and Jeff recorded their vote as "not present". See the definition above -- they then do not count as present so they do not figure into the required "yes" count. As I stated, my understanding of the rules is consistent with the interpretation used in Japan. I would object to any other interpretation since the by-laws are actually clear on this point. I agree that the by-laws should be clear in general; while I think they are clear, I would not object to a clarifying statement being added to the effect that "abstentions are effectively negative votes." I think we have many other issues that should be made concrete in the by-laws and this is the least important. What is required to pass a first reading is probably the most obvious issue. Bronis On Wed, 30 May 2012, Fab Tillier wrote: > Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 12:12:26 > >> On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote: >> >>>> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an indication >>>> that this bylaw change was half baked. >>> >>> Especially when the meeting is attended by so few people due to the >>> location. It seems like a weasel tactic to pick a remote location to >>> change the by-laws with a single vote. >> >> >> To be clear, the process document states: >> >> For the purposes of voting, a simple majority is defined as a simple >> majority of those present and eligible to vote. >> In the context of the document, the phrase "simple majority" is used to >> describe what is needed for ballots to pass; this sentence is attempting to >> define that phrase. So even though the above sentence looks like a circular >> definition, I think it's really an open-ended definition (e.g., a google search >> for "simple majority definition" turns up both definitions). >> >> I was not there and don't know *exactly* what happened, so I'll refrain from >> commenting further. > > If the bylaws are vague, we should clarify them. We should not however reinterpret them at each meeting, and should all agree on a proper interpretation and stick to it, such that ambiguity is removed going forward. Allowing our bylaws to be vague enough to afford a re-interpretation at each meeting does nobody any good. > > -Fab > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
by Jeff Hammond 30 May '12

30 May '12

The way to make sure that 1/0/17 votes don't pass is for a few of the 17 abstains to grow a pair and vote "no" if they do not want the vote to pass. By induction, I believe that 8/1/7 should pass because if 7 voters have no reason to vote "no" and 8 of the 9 that care think it should pass, then that means the proposal is pretty good. Not universally exciting perhaps, but still worthy of inclusion in the standard. Abstain votes seem to indicate either (1) the voter does not feel qualified to evaluate the ticket or (2) the voter is too political correct aka cowardly to express a useful opinion. In the case of (1), abstain should really mean nothing and not "no" so that unqualified voters don't inadvertently sink good proposals just because they don't care about or don't understand them. In the case of (2), if I thought I could influence Fortune 500 companies to do the right thing, I would go after much bigger fish than MPI. Jeff On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Underwood, Keith D <keith.d.underwood(a)intel.com> wrote: > Yes, and I wasn't asserting anything differently. ï¿½We need rules that encompass what the forum believes should happen in the scenarios below. > > Keith > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- >> bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Richard Graham >> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:31 PM >> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 >> >> We need a clear set of rules, which we follow, regardless of how we feel >> about the outcome. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- >> bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Underwood, Keith D >> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:21 AM >> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 >> >> <note to self: don't eat Jeff's brownies> :-) >> >> There are scenarios we need to address in the voting, though. ï¿½Votes that go >> 1/0/15 shouldn't pass. ï¿½Votes that go 6/5/5 probably shouldn't pass. ï¿½Votes >> that go 8/1/7 clearly suck, and we should stop doing that! >> >> Seriously, though, it is not immediately clear that an 8/1/7 vote should pass. >> If there is that much apathy about a ticket, does the standard need to grow? >> >> Keith >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- >> > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond >> > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:49 PM >> > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >> > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 >> > >> > Given that not being in the room means abstain, this new rule gives me >> > a strong incentive to bake laxative-laced brownies when #281 goes up >> > for a second vote. >> > >> > In other words, I agree that the new rules are stupid and that Mohamad >> > is quite justified in being annoyed at his ticket being voted down >> > since it was clearly favored by everyone who cared to voice an opinion. >> > >> > Jeff >> > >> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> >> > wrote: >> > > On May 30, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote: >> > > >> > >> If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand >> > >> what is >> > being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote >> > abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. >> > > >> > > +1 >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Jeff Squyres >> > > jsquyres(a)cisco.com >> > > For corporate legal information go to: >> > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> > > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > mpi-forum mailing list >> > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Jeff Hammond >> > Argonne Leadership Computing Facility >> > University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / >> > (630) >> > 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond >> > https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond >> > _______________________________________________ >> > mpi-forum mailing list >> > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
by Underwood, Keith D 30 May '12

30 May '12

Yes, and I wasn't asserting anything differently. We need rules that encompass what the forum believes should happen in the scenarios below. Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Richard Graham > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:31 PM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 > > We need a clear set of rules, which we follow, regardless of how we feel > about the outcome. > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Underwood, Keith D > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:21 AM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 > > <note to self: don't eat Jeff's brownies> :-) > > There are scenarios we need to address in the voting, though. Votes that go > 1/0/15 shouldn't pass. Votes that go 6/5/5 probably shouldn't pass. Votes > that go 8/1/7 clearly suck, and we should stop doing that! > > Seriously, though, it is not immediately clear that an 8/1/7 vote should pass. > If there is that much apathy about a ticket, does the standard need to grow? > > Keith > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- > > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond > > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:49 PM > > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273 > > > > Given that not being in the room means abstain, this new rule gives me > > a strong incentive to bake laxative-laced brownies when #281 goes up > > for a second vote. > > > > In other words, I agree that the new rules are stupid and that Mohamad > > is quite justified in being annoyed at his ticket being voted down > > since it was clearly favored by everyone who cared to voice an opinion. > > > > Jeff > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> > > wrote: > > > On May 30, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote: > > > > > >> If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand > > >> what is > > being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote > > abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > -- > > > Jeff Squyres > > > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > > > For corporate legal information go to: > > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > mpi-forum mailing list > > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Hammond > > Argonne Leadership Computing Facility > > University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond(a)alcf.anl.gov / > > (630) > > 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond > > https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi-forum mailing list > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0