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

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership
by Schulz, Martin 27 Sep '12

27 Sep '12

On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:46 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > > Jeff: > > My intent is not to "neuter" the chair. Instead, I am only > stating that the chair should clearly state when (s)he is > voicing personal/institutional opinions as opposed to acting > as leader (sometimes the roles conflict and also sometimes > the leader does have to enforce the clear general opinion). I think you are saying the same thing. This is, of course, aside the fact that you wouldn't find anybody who is active in the forum and who doesn't have a personal agenda. We all have one and that's why we are engaged. The people with a double role just have to keep it separate - and that's not only true for the chair, but (perhaps to a lesser extent) also for the other roles that Jeff pointed out. I also agree with Jeff - if we are setting up a new structure, let's look at all roles and define them better. > As to logistics, yes, I see your point but I still think > that combining them would generally simplify things. I > also think it is fine for the chair to delegate aspects > that the convener handles but they should still be > responsible for them (we all blame the chair if they do > not go right so they should also have the authority since > they de facto have responsibility). The convener role will always have to be split up, in particular if meetings get hosted at individual organizations. A certain part of the work (e.g., wireless, badging, room reservation, ...) always fell on people from the hosting organization and that won't change. The more critical question, IMHO, is the financial part that Jeff brought up. We have organizations that have more restrictions than others and we have to take that into account. Further, if the person responsible for financial transactions changes, we have to transfer money - the same if the person responsible changes organization (as we can see at Rich's example, which ended up being non trivial or even impossible, if I understood the situation right). The easiest thing would be to have a constant entity who manages all financial aspects of the forum along with a separate role of a treasurer. Martin > > Bronis > > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Jeff Squyres wrote: > >> This is exactly why we should have the discussion: "chair" and "convener" have not necessarily been the same person over the last few years. Rich has been the convener since 2.1, but has only been the chair for 3.0. >> >> My $0.02 is that I don't think they need to be the same person. The chair is the [neutral] technical leader (and therefore sets the meeting agendas), but the convener is someone with an organization who can make meeting room reservations, accept registration and payments from meeting attendees, etc. That being said, as long as the chair remains neutral in setting the agenda and guiding the process, the chair should be allowed to have their own technical opinions, just like anyone else. Otherwise, you're just neutering the chair, and their incentive to participate is quite limited. >> >> In short: I see the convener as a largely logistical role, but the chair as more of a technical role. >> >> >> >> On Sep 27, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >> >>> >>> Personally, I think "chair" should also be "meeting convener". >>> The chair should be largely administrative/neutral/meeting >>> organizer and runner. Convening meetings is a natural part >>> of that activity. The chair should not be promoting a >>> particular technical agenda (at least not as "chair"). >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Jeff Squyres wrote: >>> >>>> As part of this discussion, it might be worthwhile to also bring up the auxiliary roles -- there's a bunch of things that happen behind the scenes to make the Forum function: >>>> >>>> - secretary >>>> - meeting convener >>>> - web maintainers (main site, meetings site, lists site) >>>> - svn / trac maintainer >>>> >>>> I mention this because, although I'm happy to continue in the role as secretary, a) if there's someone else burning to do that role, it would be fair to discuss it, and b) sometimes there has been confusion about exactly what the secretary is supposed to do. Maybe it would be useful to delineate the responsibilities of the auxiliary roles. Just like we discovered that we all didn't have the same conceptions of how the secretary applies the voting rules, perhaps there are other unwritten inconsistencies, too. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Brightwell, Ronald wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Greetings: >>>>> >>>>> I wasn't able to attend the Forum meeting last week, so I don't know if this came up or not, but given that it's election season in the US and MPI 3.0 has been officially accepted, it seems like a good time to discuss leadership of the Forum going forward. I know several people who have been involved from a leadership standpoint are in different situations now then they were when the 3.0 process started, and their priorities and commitments are different. I think it might be good to have an open discussion about making changes to some of the leadership roles in an effort to make sure that we start this next phase in the best way possible. >>>>> >>>>> -Ron >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> >> -- >> 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership
by Bronis R. de Supinski 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

Jeff: My intent is not to "neuter" the chair. Instead, I am only stating that the chair should clearly state when (s)he is voicing personal/institutional opinions as opposed to acting as leader (sometimes the roles conflict and also sometimes the leader does have to enforce the clear general opinion). As to logistics, yes, I see your point but I still think that combining them would generally simplify things. I also think it is fine for the chair to delegate aspects that the convener handles but they should still be responsible for them (we all blame the chair if they do not go right so they should also have the authority since they de facto have responsibility). Bronis On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Jeff Squyres wrote: > This is exactly why we should have the discussion: "chair" and "convener" have not necessarily been the same person over the last few years. Rich has been the convener since 2.1, but has only been the chair for 3.0. > > My $0.02 is that I don't think they need to be the same person. The chair is the [neutral] technical leader (and therefore sets the meeting agendas), but the convener is someone with an organization who can make meeting room reservations, accept registration and payments from meeting attendees, etc. That being said, as long as the chair remains neutral in setting the agenda and guiding the process, the chair should be allowed to have their own technical opinions, just like anyone else. Otherwise, you're just neutering the chair, and their incentive to participate is quite limited. > > In short: I see the convener as a largely logistical role, but the chair as more of a technical role. > > > > On Sep 27, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > >> >> Personally, I think "chair" should also be "meeting convener". >> The chair should be largely administrative/neutral/meeting >> organizer and runner. Convening meetings is a natural part >> of that activity. The chair should not be promoting a >> particular technical agenda (at least not as "chair"). >> >> >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Jeff Squyres wrote: >> >>> As part of this discussion, it might be worthwhile to also bring up the auxiliary roles -- there's a bunch of things that happen behind the scenes to make the Forum function: >>> >>> - secretary >>> - meeting convener >>> - web maintainers (main site, meetings site, lists site) >>> - svn / trac maintainer >>> >>> I mention this because, although I'm happy to continue in the role as secretary, a) if there's someone else burning to do that role, it would be fair to discuss it, and b) sometimes there has been confusion about exactly what the secretary is supposed to do. Maybe it would be useful to delineate the responsibilities of the auxiliary roles. Just like we discovered that we all didn't have the same conceptions of how the secretary applies the voting rules, perhaps there are other unwritten inconsistencies, too. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Brightwell, Ronald wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Greetings: >>>> >>>> I wasn't able to attend the Forum meeting last week, so I don't know if this came up or not, but given that it's election season in the US and MPI 3.0 has been officially accepted, it seems like a good time to discuss leadership of the Forum going forward. I know several people who have been involved from a leadership standpoint are in different situations now then they were when the 3.0 process started, and their priorities and commitments are different. I think it might be good to have an open discussion about making changes to some of the leadership roles in an effort to make sure that we start this next phase in the best way possible. >>>> >>>> -Ron >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership
by Jeff Squyres 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

This is exactly why we should have the discussion: "chair" and "convener" have not necessarily been the same person over the last few years. Rich has been the convener since 2.1, but has only been the chair for 3.0. My $0.02 is that I don't think they need to be the same person. The chair is the [neutral] technical leader (and therefore sets the meeting agendas), but the convener is someone with an organization who can make meeting room reservations, accept registration and payments from meeting attendees, etc. That being said, as long as the chair remains neutral in setting the agenda and guiding the process, the chair should be allowed to have their own technical opinions, just like anyone else. Otherwise, you're just neutering the chair, and their incentive to participate is quite limited. In short: I see the convener as a largely logistical role, but the chair as more of a technical role. On Sep 27, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > > Personally, I think "chair" should also be "meeting convener". > The chair should be largely administrative/neutral/meeting > organizer and runner. Convening meetings is a natural part > of that activity. The chair should not be promoting a > particular technical agenda (at least not as "chair"). > > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Jeff Squyres wrote: > >> As part of this discussion, it might be worthwhile to also bring up the auxiliary roles -- there's a bunch of things that happen behind the scenes to make the Forum function: >> >> - secretary >> - meeting convener >> - web maintainers (main site, meetings site, lists site) >> - svn / trac maintainer >> >> I mention this because, although I'm happy to continue in the role as secretary, a) if there's someone else burning to do that role, it would be fair to discuss it, and b) sometimes there has been confusion about exactly what the secretary is supposed to do. Maybe it would be useful to delineate the responsibilities of the auxiliary roles. Just like we discovered that we all didn't have the same conceptions of how the secretary applies the voting rules, perhaps there are other unwritten inconsistencies, too. >> >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Brightwell, Ronald wrote: >> >>> >>> Greetings: >>> >>> I wasn't able to attend the Forum meeting last week, so I don't know if this came up or not, but given that it's election season in the US and MPI 3.0 has been officially accepted, it seems like a good time to discuss leadership of the Forum going forward. I know several people who have been involved from a leadership standpoint are in different situations now then they were when the 3.0 process started, and their priorities and commitments are different. I think it might be good to have an open discussion about making changes to some of the leadership roles in an effort to make sure that we start this next phase in the best way possible. >>> >>> -Ron >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership
by Bronis R. de Supinski 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

Personally, I think "chair" should also be "meeting convener". The chair should be largely administrative/neutral/meeting organizer and runner. Convening meetings is a natural part of that activity. The chair should not be promoting a particular technical agenda (at least not as "chair"). On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Jeff Squyres wrote: > As part of this discussion, it might be worthwhile to also bring up the auxiliary roles -- there's a bunch of things that happen behind the scenes to make the Forum function: > > - secretary > - meeting convener > - web maintainers (main site, meetings site, lists site) > - svn / trac maintainer > > I mention this because, although I'm happy to continue in the role as secretary, a) if there's someone else burning to do that role, it would be fair to discuss it, and b) sometimes there has been confusion about exactly what the secretary is supposed to do. Maybe it would be useful to delineate the responsibilities of the auxiliary roles. Just like we discovered that we all didn't have the same conceptions of how the secretary applies the voting rules, perhaps there are other unwritten inconsistencies, too. > > > > On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Brightwell, Ronald wrote: > >> >> Greetings: >> >> I wasn't able to attend the Forum meeting last week, so I don't know if this came up or not, but given that it's election season in the US and MPI 3.0 has been officially accepted, it seems like a good time to discuss leadership of the Forum going forward. I know several people who have been involved from a leadership standpoint are in different situations now then they were when the 3.0 process started, and their priorities and commitments are different. I think it might be good to have an open discussion about making changes to some of the leadership roles in an effort to make sure that we start this next phase in the best way possible. >> >> -Ron >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > -- > 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 >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership
by Jeff Squyres 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

As part of this discussion, it might be worthwhile to also bring up the auxiliary roles -- there's a bunch of things that happen behind the scenes to make the Forum function: - secretary - meeting convener - web maintainers (main site, meetings site, lists site) - svn / trac maintainer I mention this because, although I'm happy to continue in the role as secretary, a) if there's someone else burning to do that role, it would be fair to discuss it, and b) sometimes there has been confusion about exactly what the secretary is supposed to do. Maybe it would be useful to delineate the responsibilities of the auxiliary roles. Just like we discovered that we all didn't have the same conceptions of how the secretary applies the voting rules, perhaps there are other unwritten inconsistencies, too. On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Brightwell, Ronald wrote: > > Greetings: > > I wasn't able to attend the Forum meeting last week, so I don't know if this came up or not, but given that it's election season in the US and MPI 3.0 has been officially accepted, it seems like a good time to discuss leadership of the Forum going forward. I know several people who have been involved from a leadership standpoint are in different situations now then they were when the 3.0 process started, and their priorities and commitments are different. I think it might be good to have an open discussion about making changes to some of the leadership roles in an effort to make sure that we start this next phase in the best way possible. > > -Ron > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership
by Anthony Skjellum 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

Why don't we formulate our new plan of governance and architectural structure, and group organization via e-mail soon, meet at SC2012 to confirm it where will clearly have quorum, and implement it at the December meeting? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Graham" <richardg(a)mellanox.com> To: "mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:15:51 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership This is planned to be discussed at the next meeting. We have had a different chair for 2.1, 2.2, and 3.0, and this will be no different. Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: Brightwell, Ronald [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 01:28 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list ‎[[email protected]]‎ <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Subject: [Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership Greetings: I wasn't able to attend the Forum meeting last week, so I don't know if this came up or not, but given that it's election season in the US and MPI 3.0 has been officially accepted, it seems like a good time to discuss leadership of the Forum going forward. I know several people who have been involved from a leadership standpoint are in different situations now then they were when the 3.0 process started, and their priorities and commitments are different. I think it might be good to have an open discussion about making changes to some of the leadership roles in an effort to make sure that we start this next phase in the best way possible. -Ron _______________________________________________ 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 -- 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] MPI Next leadership
by Richard Graham 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

This is planned to be discussed at the next meeting. We have had a different chair for 2.1, 2.2, and 3.0, and this will be no different. Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: Brightwell, Ronald [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 01:28 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list ‎[[email protected]]‎ <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Subject: [Mpi-forum] MPI Next leadership Greetings: I wasn't able to attend the Forum meeting last week, so I don't know if this came up or not, but given that it's election season in the US and MPI 3.0 has been officially accepted, it seems like a good time to discuss leadership of the Forum going forward. I know several people who have been involved from a leadership standpoint are in different situations now then they were when the 3.0 process started, and their priorities and commitments are different. I think it might be good to have an open discussion about making changes to some of the leadership roles in an effort to make sure that we start this next phase in the best way possible. -Ron _______________________________________________ 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] Meeting schedule for 2013
by Aurélien Bouteiller 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

The 3-1 with 1 alternate between asia and europe collected the most vote. However there was significant disappointment about not collocating a meeting with EuroMPI, and after the straw vote closed, another interesting possibility was envisioned: even years: 3US+euroMPI odd years: 2US,1Asia+EuroMPI. This last proposal has not been straw voted, so it is not possible to know if it has support, but it seemed from the reception it had that the idea is not unbearable for most US institutions. Aurelien Le 26 sept. 2012 ï¿½ 15:17, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres(a)cisco.com> a ï¿½crit : > I don't remember there being a majority for the 2-2 option here in Vienna -- am I remembering last week incorrectly? > > I definitely can't do 2 international meetings next week. > > > > > On Sep 26, 2012, at 8:02 PM, Richard Graham wrote: > >> This was discussed and there was another vote at the meeting in Vienna. This note is just a follow up to the discussions at that meeting. >> >> Rich >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Schulz, Martin >> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 7:36 PM >> To: Bronis R. de Supinski; Main MPI Forum mailing list >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013 >> >> Hi Rich, >> >> I have the same recollection as Bronis and Mohamad. I thought there was a strong majority (at least at the Chicago meeting) for a 3-1 solution with alternating non-US locations (one year Asia, one year Europe, but not both in one year - as it also shows on the current tentative meeting calendar for next year). I know this is not fair to everyone, but the group (again, at least in Chicago, which was pretty complete, though, since we were wrapping up 3.0) felt that this would maximize active participation. >> >> Martin >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >> >>> >>> Rich: >>> >>> I would have to disagree. At best, you are splitting hairs to say this >>> option was not voted on. In the "alternate" >>> years, it is simply the 2-2 option that was voted on and did not come >>> anywhere near the 3-1 option in terms of votes. >>> >>> The arguments against 2-2 (even in alternating years) still apply. It >>> significantly lowers attendance by active participants. >>> >>> Bronis >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, Richard Graham wrote: >>> >>>> Such decisions are not made lightly - I assure you this. This was discussed at the last meeting, and this was an option that was not voted on. However, this was discussed again at the end of the meeting, and some at EuroMPI. >>>> >>>> Rich >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mohamad >>>> Chaarawi >>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:30 PM >>>> To: mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013 >>>> >>>> Hi Rich, >>>> >>>> On 9/26/2012 10:30 AM, Richard Graham wrote: >>>>> Therefore, I propose to keep the European meeting of the Forum in >>>>> conjunction with EuroMPI, and every other year also have a meeting >>>>> in Japan. With this in mind, here is the proposed schedule for 2012 >>>> >>>> The majority at the last meeting in Chicago were against having 2 meetings internationally. We had several votes on different formations (4-0, 3-1, and 2-2), and 3-1 was the majority vote. >>>> >>>> It would have been fair to have a similar vote in Europe and see how the participants vote.. >>>> Did the attendance at the Vienna meeting vote on a different schedule, or is your change coming from just some concerns (which are also valid) from some people? >>>> >>>> Can we have a formal organizational Vote by eligible organizations on this instead of just scheduling meetings based on suggestions that vary from meeting to meeting? >>>> This vote can be done over the phone. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Mohamad >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 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 -- * Dr. Aurï¿½lien Bouteiller * Researcher at Innovative Computing Laboratory * University of Tennessee * 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, suite 309b * Knoxville, TN 37996 * 865 974 9375

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Meeting schedule for 2013
by N.M. Maclaren 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

On Sep 26 2012, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > >The arguments against 2-2 (even in alternating years) still >apply. It significantly lowers attendance by active participants. The number of attendees and even activists is significantly less important than the range of their technical skills and the breadth of their representation. Regards, Nick Maclaren.

1 0

MPI Next leadership
by Brightwell, Ronald 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

Greetings: I wasn't able to attend the Forum meeting last week, so I don't know if this came up or not, but given that it's election season in the US and MPI 3.0 has been officially accepted, it seems like a good time to discuss leadership of the Forum going forward. I know several people who have been involved from a leadership standpoint are in different situations now then they were when the 3.0 process started, and their priorities and commitments are different. I think it might be good to have an open discussion about making changes to some of the leadership roles in an effort to make sure that we start this next phase in the best way possible. -Ron

1 0