April 2015 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Tools chapter
by Kathryn Mohror 28 Apr '15

28 Apr '15

Hi all, There were changes to the tools chapter since the last meeting so I am sending out a new copy in preparation for the June meeting. The one change that affected the meaning of the chapter is one of the "open items" from the last meeting for ticket #377. I have fixed it in the attached text. It is on page 24, line 44 and highlighted. The other changes were white space changes in the code blocks. Those are fixed too, but not marked. Other than these updates, the chapter is the same as it was at the last meeting. Kathryn _________________________________________________________________ Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ Scalability Team @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA

1 0

Procedures doc: new draft
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 27 Apr '15

27 Apr '15

Thanks to those who attended this morning. We got some good feedback, and made some minor changes. SHORT VERSION: please review the "fast track" text (sections 5(f) and 5(g) on page 9); that's the biggest change. MORE DETAIL: You'll probably immediately notice that we changed the margins to match those on the main MPI Standard Document -- it just makes this doc look a little different than previous versions. All blue/green text has been removed -- we just have the red text that show the differences that the current v1.0 of the doc (i.e., http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/procedures-2013-03-15.pdf) Other changes based on the feedback from this morning: - Chapter Chairs only have to publish PDFs/lists of changes if there are actually changes to their chapters. They explictly NACK if they have no changes. (this is for both the RCM and FRM) - Editor publishes a full document at T-3 weeks to the RCM/FRM (after all chapter chairs have published their changes). - First vote (at the RCM) also includes a list of all the pending trivial changes (whitespace, spelling, typos). - Re-did the wording of the "fast track" text to make a list of conditions that all must be met for "fast track" to occur -- 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] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 27 Apr '15

27 Apr '15

Just to re-iterate: we're having a webex to talk through the proposed procedures document in about 30 minutes (11am US Eastern time). The goal is to have everyone be happy enough with this document to vote "yes" for it at the next meeting, and then have these rules immediately take effect so that we can have a final vote for MPI-3.1. Here's the webex info: Webex link: https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?MTID=mc87e1ef49d7e73dd9e22ae94a624… Webex password: mpi I've attached Martin's latest copy of the proposed procedures document. > On Apr 26, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Schulz Martin <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Thanks to all who already gave feedback on the new proposed voting rules > document. An updated version is attached. > > The color key is as follows: > - Black = Original document > - Red = Main changes to include rules for the ratification of a standard > document > - Blue = Suggested changes to reflect the “shortcut” option > - Green = Additional suggested changes, incl. the change to 4 weeks > > Also, as mentioned in the last email, Jeff and I setup a TelCon tomorrow > (Monday) 8am PDT for those who would like to discuss the document further. > The login instructions are below. > > Thanks! > > Martin > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA -- 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] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Schulz Martin 26 Apr '15

26 Apr '15

Hi all, Thanks to all who already gave feedback on the new proposed voting rules document. An updated version is attached. The color key is as follows: - Black = Original document - Red = Main changes to include rules for the ratification of a standard document - Blue = Suggested changes to reflect the “shortcut” option - Green = Additional suggested changes, incl. the change to 4 weeks Also, as mentioned in the last email, Jeff and I setup a TelCon tomorrow (Monday) 8am PDT for those who would like to discuss the document further. The login instructions are below. Thanks! Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA On 4/22/15, 1:58 AM, "Schulz Martin" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> wrote: >Hi all, > >Attached is a new version of the rules document, which includes the >feedback so far (changes of changes are in blue). This new version does >allow for a shortcut (but under very severe limits) and also always >requires two votes. Let us know what you think. > >As mentioned before, we would like publish the final version with all >feedback by May 4th - within four weeks of the forum - with the goal to >pass it in June. So, if there are any concerns or comments, please let us >(Jeff and Martin) know. Also, we’ll hold a webex discussion on these >rules >on April 27th at 8am PDT. Here is the dial-in information: > >Webex link: >https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?MTID=mc87e1ef49d7e73dd9e22ae94a62 >4 >dba2 >Webex password: mpi > >Anyone interested is welcome to join, > > >Martin > > >________________________________________________________________________ >Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > > > >On 4/14/15, 10:17 AM, "Steven Oyanagi" <sko(a)cray.com> wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>After some thought, I think the Forum should always have two votes for >>the >>final draft of the standard. As Martin previously pointed out, the >>ratification process is important enough to warrant the two vote rule >>similar to regular text changes. Two votes would allow more members to >>vote on the final draft. As long as they don’t miss two meetings in a >>row >>they would get to vote on some form of the final draft. A number of >>member institutions don’t go or rarely go to the international meeting so >>they could potentially miss a single final ratification vote. If I >>recall >>correctly, the final vote for the MPI 3.0 standard was scheduled for >>meeting in Europe, though for some reason that I don’t recall the final >>vote occurred by e-mail. >> >>If the Forum does decide to have a “fast path” approval process, a vote >>should be required to use the fast path and it should not be at the same >>meeting as the single standard ratification vote. >> - Steve >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> >>Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 11:44 AM >>To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules >> >>>If the changes would have been smaller, then our March meeting >>>would have finalized MPI-3.1 - I'm pretty sure. >>> >>>Yes, I also feel that there should be a short path. >>>For this, the voting slots for RCM may be on the 3rd day, >>>but should be movable to the last day and substitute the FRM >>>voting slot. >>> >>>Rolf >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "schulzm" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:06:39 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules >>> >>>> Hi Aurelien, all, >>>> >>>> Jeff and I have discussed this as well, but thought the ratification >>>> process is important enough to also warrant the two vote rule, as do >>>> regular text items. The reasoning was that there will always be some >>>> changes in the RCM (even if they are minor) and this would give >>>>people >>>>a >>>> time to think about them. However, that is certainly a good point for >>>> discussion to allow a quick path if there are really no changes >>>>pending >>>> (something like allowing the RCM and FRM to be at the same meeting >>>>with >>>> the two votes separated by at least one night). How does the rest of >>>>the >>>> group feel about this? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________________________________ >>>>_ >>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/14/15, 6:00 AM, "Aurélien Bouteiller" <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>It seems that the new rules make the preparation of the final version >>>>>always require 2 meetings. We should keep the possibility open for a 1 >>>>>meeting final version, for the case when all tickets have been voted >>>>>and >>>>>implemented long ago and we only need to vote, like it happened for >>>>>3.0. >>>>>One could argue that the last release meeting where we had still >>>>>semantic >>>>>patches on our plate is the outlier rather than the norm. >>>>> >>>>>Aurelien >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Aurélien Bouteiller ~ https://icl.cs.utk.edu/~bouteill/ >>>>> >>>>>> Le 14 avr. 2015 à 01:26, Schulz Martin <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Steve, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, I should have made this clear - our proposal would be to >>>>>>consider >>>>>> the March meeting a successful RCM and then, if the rules are >>>>>>accepted, >>>>>> hold the Chicago meeting in July as the FRM. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for pointing this out, >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>_____________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>_ >>>>>>_ >>>>>>_ >>>>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>>>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4/13/15, 8:16 AM, "Steven Oyanagi" <sko(a)cray.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A possibly dumb question, but one that needs clarification for >>>>>>>those >>>>>>>of us >>>>>>> who were not at the March MPI Forum meeting. The new voting rules >>>>>>>propose >>>>>>> a ³Release Candidate Meeting (RCM)² and a ³Final Ratification >>>>>>>Meeting². >>>>>>> For MPI-3.1, is the March meeting considered to be the ³Release >>>>>>>Candidate² >>>>>>> meeting and we are on track to have final ratification of MPI-3.1 >>>>>>>in >>>>>>>June, >>>>>>> or will June be the RCM and final ratification would occur in >>>>>>>September? >>>>>>> - Steve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Martin Shulz <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >>>>>>> Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >>>>>>><mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>>> Date: Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:13 AM >>>>>>> To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>>> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As discussed at the last forum meeting, Jeff and I drafted an >>>>>>>>updated >>>>>>>> version of the MPI rules/voting document that we want to propose >>>>>>>>to >>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>> MPI forum and that, if accepted, is intended to cover the MPI 3.1 >>>>>>>> ratification. The document is attached and all >>>>>>>> changes compared to the previous document are marked in red. The >>>>>>>>idea >>>>>>>> was to basically write up the process we followed at the last >>>>>>>>meeting >>>>>>>>and >>>>>>>> that most seemed to like. Questions and comments are, of course, >>>>>>>>welcome >>>>>>>> our intent is to publish a final version >>>>>>>> with comments included by May 4th, i.e., 4 weeks before the June >>>>>>>>forum, >>>>>>>> and then put this document up for a vote at the meeting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>___________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>_ >>>>>>>>_ >>>>>>>>__ >>>>>>>>_ >>>>>>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>>>>>>> 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 >>> >>>-- >>>Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de >>>High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ﯯ(0)711/685-65530 >>>University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ﯯ(0)711 / 685-65832 >>>Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner >>>Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) >>>_______________________________________________ >>>mpi-forum mailing list >>>mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Logistics for the June 1-4 Forum meeting in Chicago
by Richard Graham 24 Apr '15

24 Apr '15

The registration page for the meeting is up. It is at: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/mpi-forum-tickets-16703722283 To meet the request for a higher grade of food, the registration charge will go up to $150/person. Annelise is working on trying to find a room block, but turns out there is a big convention in town, and prices are through the roof - similar to last year. We will see what can be done, but I am not very optimistic. Rich

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Kathryn Mohror 22 Apr '15

22 Apr '15

Hi all, I like the new organization you have done. Also, the definitions you added should help new members get up to speed! Some feedback: 2.1 #3 has awkward wording to me. I get what you are trying to say, but it's hard to parse and feels colloquial to me. - "Ensure a process that ensures..." - "... Document that is well thought through and allows..." It took me a while to realize that you were referring to "process" and not "Document" for "well though through and allows". 2.2.1 2nd paragraph: "(four weeks prior in case of votes for a final MPI Standard.." This is confusing later because there is a difference between a release candidate meeting and a final ratification meeting, and I’m not sure which you mean by "final MPI Standard" here. When I start reading the RCM rules, I am wondering why it says 2 weeks when we are discussing what I think is a (first) vote on a "final MPI standard." After reading more, I think you mean the FRM version of the Standard document, but it's not clear right away. Maybe changing it to "(four weeks prior in the case of final votes for an MPI Standard document..."? Also, given that 2.2.4 4(f) allows for fast tracking the finalization of a new standard version, do we want to have a 4 week lead time for the RCM as well? To give more time to find any bugs/issues? It seems fast to me to allow the fast track process with only 2 weeks lead time. 2.2.4 7(d) I would make this a footnote or something. It seems out of place as part of the "rules" for the process. Kathryn _________________________________________________________________ Kathryn Mohror, kathryn(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ Scalability Team @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Bland, Wesley > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:56 AM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules > > Minor grammatical fix: > > If, after the ballot, the list of all still-unresolved issues is empty and the forum > was able to resolve all other minor issues, such **as** formatting and > whitespace problems, spelling errors, and other typos... > > > On Apr 22, 2015, at 3:58 AM, Schulz Martin <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Attached is a new version of the rules document, which includes the > > feedback so far (changes of changes are in blue). This new version > > does allow for a shortcut (but under very severe limits) and also > > always requires two votes. Let us know what you think. > > > > As mentioned before, we would like publish the final version with all > > feedback by May 4th - within four weeks of the forum - with the goal > > to pass it in June. So, if there are any concerns or comments, please > > let us (Jeff and Martin) know. Also, we’ll hold a webex discussion on > > these rules on April 27th at 8am PDT. Here is the dial-in information: > > > > Webex link: > > > https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?MTID=mc87e1ef49d7e73dd9e22a > e9 > > 4a624 > > dba2 > > Webex password: mpi > > > > Anyone interested is welcome to join, > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > ____________ > > __ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC > > @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/14/15, 10:17 AM, "Steven Oyanagi" <sko(a)cray.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> After some thought, I think the Forum should always have two votes > >> for the final draft of the standard. As Martin previously pointed > >> out, the ratification process is important enough to warrant the two > >> vote rule similar to regular text changes. Two votes would allow > >> more members to vote on the final draft. As long as they don’t miss > >> two meetings in a row they would get to vote on some form of the > >> final draft. A number of member institutions don’t go or rarely go > >> to the international meeting so they could potentially miss a single > >> final ratification vote. If I recall correctly, the final vote for > >> the MPI 3.0 standard was scheduled for meeting in Europe, though for > >> some reason that I don’t recall the final vote occurred by e-mail. > >> > >> If the Forum does decide to have a “fast path” approval process, a > >> vote should be required to use the fast path and it should not be at > >> the same meeting as the single standard ratification vote. > >> - Steve > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> > >> Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 11:44 AM > >> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules > >> > >>> If the changes would have been smaller, then our March meeting would > >>> have finalized MPI-3.1 - I'm pretty sure. > >>> > >>> Yes, I also feel that there should be a short path. > >>> For this, the voting slots for RCM may be on the 3rd day, but should > >>> be movable to the last day and substitute the FRM voting slot. > >>> > >>> Rolf > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "schulzm" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> > >>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:06:39 PM > >>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules > >>> > >>>> Hi Aurelien, all, > >>>> > >>>> Jeff and I have discussed this as well, but thought the > >>>> ratification process is important enough to also warrant the two > >>>> vote rule, as do regular text items. The reasoning was that there > >>>> will always be some changes in the RCM (even if they are minor) and > >>>> this would give people a time to think about them. However, that is > >>>> certainly a good point for discussion to allow a quick path if > >>>> there are really no changes pending (something like allowing the > >>>> RCM and FRM to be at the same meeting with the two votes separated > >>>> by at least one night). How does the rest of the group feel about > >>>> this? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > __________________________________________________________ > _________ > >>>> _____ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ > >>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 4/14/15, 6:00 AM, "Aurélien Bouteiller" <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> It seems that the new rules make the preparation of the final > >>>>> version always require 2 meetings. We should keep the possibility > >>>>> open for a 1 meeting final version, for the case when all tickets > >>>>> have been voted and implemented long ago and we only need to > vote, > >>>>> like it happened for 3.0. > >>>>> One could argue that the last release meeting where we had still > >>>>> semantic patches on our plate is the outlier rather than the norm. > >>>>> > >>>>> Aurelien > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Aurélien Bouteiller ~ https://icl.cs.utk.edu/~bouteill/ > >>>>> > >>>>>> Le 14 avr. 2015 à 01:26, Schulz Martin <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> a écrit : > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Steve, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry, I should have made this clear - our proposal would be to > >>>>>> consider the March meeting a successful RCM and then, if the > >>>>>> rules are accepted, hold the Chicago meeting in July as the FRM. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for pointing this out, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Martin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > __________________________________________________________ > _______ > >>>>>> _____ > >>>>>> _ > >>>>>> _ > >>>>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ > >>>>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 4/13/15, 8:16 AM, "Steven Oyanagi" <sko(a)cray.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A possibly dumb question, but one that needs clarification for > >>>>>>> those of us who were not at the March MPI Forum meeting. The > >>>>>>> new voting rules propose a ³Release Candidate Meeting (RCM)² > and > >>>>>>> a ³Final Ratification Meeting². > >>>>>>> For MPI-3.1, is the March meeting considered to be the ³Release > >>>>>>> Candidate² meeting and we are on track to have final > >>>>>>> ratification of MPI-3.1 in June, or will June be the RCM and > >>>>>>> final ratification would occur in September? > >>>>>>> - Steve > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: Martin Shulz <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> > >>>>>>> Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > >>>>>>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >>>>>>> Date: Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:13 AM > >>>>>>> To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >>>>>>> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As discussed at the last forum meeting, Jeff and I drafted an > >>>>>>>> updated version of the MPI rules/voting document that we want > >>>>>>>> to propose to the MPI forum and that, if accepted, is intended > >>>>>>>> to cover the MPI 3.1 ratification. The document is attached and > >>>>>>>> all changes compared to the previous document are marked in > >>>>>>>> red. The idea was to basically write up the process we followed > >>>>>>>> at the last meeting and that most seemed to like. Questions and > >>>>>>>> comments are, of course, welcome our intent is to publish a > >>>>>>>> final version with comments included by May 4th, i.e., 4 weeks > >>>>>>>> before the June forum, and then put this document up for a vote > >>>>>>>> at the meeting. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Martin > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > __________________________________________________________ > _____ > >>>>>>>> _____ > >>>>>>>> _ > >>>>>>>> __ > >>>>>>>> _ > >>>>>>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ > >>>>>>>> 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 > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email > >>> rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . > >>> phone ﯯ(0)711/685-65530 University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. > >>> fax ﯯ(0)711 / 685-65832 Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . > >>> www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, > >>> Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> mpi-forum mailing list > >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > >> > > > > > <procedures.pdf>____________________________________________ > ___ > > 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] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Bland, Wesley 22 Apr '15

22 Apr '15

Minor grammatical fix: If, after the ballot, the list of all still-unresolved issues is empty and the forum was able to resolve all other minor issues, such **as** formatting and whitespace problems, spelling errors, and other typos... > On Apr 22, 2015, at 3:58 AM, Schulz Martin <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Attached is a new version of the rules document, which includes the > feedback so far (changes of changes are in blue). This new version does > allow for a shortcut (but under very severe limits) and also always > requires two votes. Let us know what you think. > > As mentioned before, we would like publish the final version with all > feedback by May 4th - within four weeks of the forum - with the goal to > pass it in June. So, if there are any concerns or comments, please let us > (Jeff and Martin) know. Also, we’ll hold a webex discussion on these rules > on April 27th at 8am PDT. Here is the dial-in information: > > Webex link: > https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?MTID=mc87e1ef49d7e73dd9e22ae94a624 > dba2 > Webex password: mpi > > Anyone interested is welcome to join, > > > Martin > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > > > > On 4/14/15, 10:17 AM, "Steven Oyanagi" <sko(a)cray.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> After some thought, I think the Forum should always have two votes for the >> final draft of the standard. As Martin previously pointed out, the >> ratification process is important enough to warrant the two vote rule >> similar to regular text changes. Two votes would allow more members to >> vote on the final draft. As long as they don’t miss two meetings in a row >> they would get to vote on some form of the final draft. A number of >> member institutions don’t go or rarely go to the international meeting so >> they could potentially miss a single final ratification vote. If I recall >> correctly, the final vote for the MPI 3.0 standard was scheduled for >> meeting in Europe, though for some reason that I don’t recall the final >> vote occurred by e-mail. >> >> If the Forum does decide to have a “fast path” approval process, a vote >> should be required to use the fast path and it should not be at the same >> meeting as the single standard ratification vote. >> - Steve >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> >> Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 11:44 AM >> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules >> >>> If the changes would have been smaller, then our March meeting >>> would have finalized MPI-3.1 - I'm pretty sure. >>> >>> Yes, I also feel that there should be a short path. >>> For this, the voting slots for RCM may be on the 3rd day, >>> but should be movable to the last day and substitute the FRM >>> voting slot. >>> >>> Rolf >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "schulzm" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >>>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:06:39 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules >>> >>>> Hi Aurelien, all, >>>> >>>> Jeff and I have discussed this as well, but thought the ratification >>>> process is important enough to also warrant the two vote rule, as do >>>> regular text items. The reasoning was that there will always be some >>>> changes in the RCM (even if they are minor) and this would give people >>>> a >>>> time to think about them. However, that is certainly a good point for >>>> discussion to allow a quick path if there are really no changes pending >>>> (something like allowing the RCM and FRM to be at the same meeting with >>>> the two votes separated by at least one night). How does the rest of >>>> the >>>> group feel about this? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/14/15, 6:00 AM, "Aurélien Bouteiller" <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It seems that the new rules make the preparation of the final version >>>>> always require 2 meetings. We should keep the possibility open for a 1 >>>>> meeting final version, for the case when all tickets have been voted >>>>> and >>>>> implemented long ago and we only need to vote, like it happened for >>>>> 3.0. >>>>> One could argue that the last release meeting where we had still >>>>> semantic >>>>> patches on our plate is the outlier rather than the norm. >>>>> >>>>> Aurelien >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Aurélien Bouteiller ~ https://icl.cs.utk.edu/~bouteill/ >>>>> >>>>>> Le 14 avr. 2015 à 01:26, Schulz Martin <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Steve, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, I should have made this clear - our proposal would be to >>>>>> consider >>>>>> the March meeting a successful RCM and then, if the rules are >>>>>> accepted, >>>>>> hold the Chicago meeting in July as the FRM. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for pointing this out, >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> _ >>>>>> _ >>>>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>>>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4/13/15, 8:16 AM, "Steven Oyanagi" <sko(a)cray.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A possibly dumb question, but one that needs clarification for those >>>>>>> of us >>>>>>> who were not at the March MPI Forum meeting. The new voting rules >>>>>>> propose >>>>>>> a ³Release Candidate Meeting (RCM)² and a ³Final Ratification >>>>>>> Meeting². >>>>>>> For MPI-3.1, is the March meeting considered to be the ³Release >>>>>>> Candidate² >>>>>>> meeting and we are on track to have final ratification of MPI-3.1 in >>>>>>> June, >>>>>>> or will June be the RCM and final ratification would occur in >>>>>>> September? >>>>>>> - Steve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Martin Shulz <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >>>>>>> Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >>>>>>> <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>>> Date: Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:13 AM >>>>>>> To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>>> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As discussed at the last forum meeting, Jeff and I drafted an >>>>>>>> updated >>>>>>>> version of the MPI rules/voting document that we want to propose to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> MPI forum and that, if accepted, is intended to cover the MPI 3.1 >>>>>>>> ratification. The document is attached and all >>>>>>>> changes compared to the previous document are marked in red. The >>>>>>>> idea >>>>>>>> was to basically write up the process we followed at the last >>>>>>>> meeting >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> that most seemed to like. Questions and comments are, of course, >>>>>>>> welcome >>>>>>>> our intent is to publish a final version >>>>>>>> with comments included by May 4th, i.e., 4 weeks before the June >>>>>>>> forum, >>>>>>>> and then put this document up for a vote at the meeting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> _ >>>>>>>> __ >>>>>>>> _ >>>>>>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>>>>>>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de >>> High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ﯯ(0)711/685-65530 >>> University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ﯯ(0)711 / 685-65832 >>> Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner >>> Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> > > <procedures.pdf>_______________________________________________ > 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] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Schulz Martin 22 Apr '15

22 Apr '15

Hi all, Attached is a new version of the rules document, which includes the feedback so far (changes of changes are in blue). This new version does allow for a shortcut (but under very severe limits) and also always requires two votes. Let us know what you think. As mentioned before, we would like publish the final version with all feedback by May 4th - within four weeks of the forum - with the goal to pass it in June. So, if there are any concerns or comments, please let us (Jeff and Martin) know. Also, we’ll hold a webex discussion on these rules on April 27th at 8am PDT. Here is the dial-in information: Webex link: https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?MTID=mc87e1ef49d7e73dd9e22ae94a624 dba2 Webex password: mpi Anyone interested is welcome to join, Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA On 4/14/15, 10:17 AM, "Steven Oyanagi" <sko(a)cray.com> wrote: >Hi, > >After some thought, I think the Forum should always have two votes for the >final draft of the standard. As Martin previously pointed out, the >ratification process is important enough to warrant the two vote rule >similar to regular text changes. Two votes would allow more members to >vote on the final draft. As long as they don’t miss two meetings in a row >they would get to vote on some form of the final draft. A number of >member institutions don’t go or rarely go to the international meeting so >they could potentially miss a single final ratification vote. If I recall >correctly, the final vote for the MPI 3.0 standard was scheduled for >meeting in Europe, though for some reason that I don’t recall the final >vote occurred by e-mail. > >If the Forum does decide to have a “fast path” approval process, a vote >should be required to use the fast path and it should not be at the same >meeting as the single standard ratification vote. > - Steve > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> >Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 11:44 AM >To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules > >>If the changes would have been smaller, then our March meeting >>would have finalized MPI-3.1 - I'm pretty sure. >> >>Yes, I also feel that there should be a short path. >>For this, the voting slots for RCM may be on the 3rd day, >>but should be movable to the last day and substitute the FRM >>voting slot. >> >>Rolf >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "schulzm" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:06:39 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules >> >>> Hi Aurelien, all, >>> >>> Jeff and I have discussed this as well, but thought the ratification >>> process is important enough to also warrant the two vote rule, as do >>> regular text items. The reasoning was that there will always be some >>> changes in the RCM (even if they are minor) and this would give people >>>a >>> time to think about them. However, that is certainly a good point for >>> discussion to allow a quick path if there are really no changes pending >>> (something like allowing the RCM and FRM to be at the same meeting with >>> the two votes separated by at least one night). How does the rest of >>>the >>> group feel about this? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>>________________________________________________________________________ >>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/14/15, 6:00 AM, "Aurélien Bouteiller" <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>It seems that the new rules make the preparation of the final version >>>>always require 2 meetings. We should keep the possibility open for a 1 >>>>meeting final version, for the case when all tickets have been voted >>>>and >>>>implemented long ago and we only need to vote, like it happened for >>>>3.0. >>>>One could argue that the last release meeting where we had still >>>>semantic >>>>patches on our plate is the outlier rather than the norm. >>>> >>>>Aurelien >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Aurélien Bouteiller ~ https://icl.cs.utk.edu/~bouteill/ >>>> >>>>> Le 14 avr. 2015 à 01:26, Schulz Martin <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Hi Steve, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, I should have made this clear - our proposal would be to >>>>>consider >>>>> the March meeting a successful RCM and then, if the rules are >>>>>accepted, >>>>> hold the Chicago meeting in July as the FRM. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for pointing this out, >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>______________________________________________________________________ >>>>>_ >>>>>_ >>>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/13/15, 8:16 AM, "Steven Oyanagi" <sko(a)cray.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> A possibly dumb question, but one that needs clarification for those >>>>>>of us >>>>>> who were not at the March MPI Forum meeting. The new voting rules >>>>>>propose >>>>>> a ³Release Candidate Meeting (RCM)² and a ³Final Ratification >>>>>>Meeting². >>>>>> For MPI-3.1, is the March meeting considered to be the ³Release >>>>>>Candidate² >>>>>> meeting and we are on track to have final ratification of MPI-3.1 in >>>>>>June, >>>>>> or will June be the RCM and final ratification would occur in >>>>>>September? >>>>>> - Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Martin Shulz <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >>>>>> Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >>>>>><mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>> Date: Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:13 AM >>>>>> To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>>> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As discussed at the last forum meeting, Jeff and I drafted an >>>>>>>updated >>>>>>> version of the MPI rules/voting document that we want to propose to >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> MPI forum and that, if accepted, is intended to cover the MPI 3.1 >>>>>>> ratification. The document is attached and all >>>>>>> changes compared to the previous document are marked in red. The >>>>>>>idea >>>>>>> was to basically write up the process we followed at the last >>>>>>>meeting >>>>>>>and >>>>>>> that most seemed to like. Questions and comments are, of course, >>>>>>>welcome >>>>>>> our intent is to publish a final version >>>>>>> with comments included by May 4th, i.e., 4 weeks before the June >>>>>>>forum, >>>>>>> and then put this document up for a vote at the meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>____________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>_ >>>>>>>__ >>>>>>>_ >>>>>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>>>>>> 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 >> >>-- >>Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de >>High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ﯯ(0)711/685-65530 >>University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ﯯ(0)711 / 685-65832 >>Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner >>Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) >>_______________________________________________ >>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] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Steven Oyanagi 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

Hi, After some thought, I think the Forum should always have two votes for the final draft of the standard. As Martin previously pointed out, the ratification process is important enough to warrant the two vote rule similar to regular text changes. Two votes would allow more members to vote on the final draft. As long as they don’t miss two meetings in a row they would get to vote on some form of the final draft. A number of member institutions don’t go or rarely go to the international meeting so they could potentially miss a single final ratification vote. If I recall correctly, the final vote for the MPI 3.0 standard was scheduled for meeting in Europe, though for some reason that I don’t recall the final vote occurred by e-mail. If the Forum does decide to have a “fast path” approval process, a vote should be required to use the fast path and it should not be at the same meeting as the single standard ratification vote. - Steve -----Original Message----- From: Rolf Rabenseifner <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 11:44 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules >If the changes would have been smaller, then our March meeting >would have finalized MPI-3.1 - I'm pretty sure. > >Yes, I also feel that there should be a short path. >For this, the voting slots for RCM may be on the 3rd day, >but should be movable to the last day and substitute the FRM >voting slot. > >Rolf > >----- Original Message ----- >> From: "schulzm" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:06:39 PM >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules > >> Hi Aurelien, all, >> >> Jeff and I have discussed this as well, but thought the ratification >> process is important enough to also warrant the two vote rule, as do >> regular text items. The reasoning was that there will always be some >> changes in the RCM (even if they are minor) and this would give people a >> time to think about them. However, that is certainly a good point for >> discussion to allow a quick path if there are really no changes pending >> (something like allowing the RCM and FRM to be at the same meeting with >> the two votes separated by at least one night). How does the rest of the >> group feel about this? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Martin >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4/14/15, 6:00 AM, "Aurélien Bouteiller" <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> wrote: >> >>>It seems that the new rules make the preparation of the final version >>>always require 2 meetings. We should keep the possibility open for a 1 >>>meeting final version, for the case when all tickets have been voted and >>>implemented long ago and we only need to vote, like it happened for 3.0. >>>One could argue that the last release meeting where we had still >>>semantic >>>patches on our plate is the outlier rather than the norm. >>> >>>Aurelien >>> >>>-- >>>Aurélien Bouteiller ~ https://icl.cs.utk.edu/~bouteill/ >>> >>>> Le 14 avr. 2015 à 01:26, Schulz Martin <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> a écrit : >>>> >>>> Hi Steve, >>>> >>>> Sorry, I should have made this clear - our proposal would be to >>>>consider >>>> the March meeting a successful RCM and then, if the rules are >>>>accepted, >>>> hold the Chicago meeting in July as the FRM. >>>> >>>> Thanks for pointing this out, >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________________________________ >>>>_ >>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/13/15, 8:16 AM, "Steven Oyanagi" <sko(a)cray.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> A possibly dumb question, but one that needs clarification for those >>>>>of us >>>>> who were not at the March MPI Forum meeting. The new voting rules >>>>>propose >>>>> a ³Release Candidate Meeting (RCM)² and a ³Final Ratification >>>>>Meeting². >>>>> For MPI-3.1, is the March meeting considered to be the ³Release >>>>>Candidate² >>>>> meeting and we are on track to have final ratification of MPI-3.1 in >>>>>June, >>>>> or will June be the RCM and final ratification would occur in >>>>>September? >>>>> - Steve >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Martin Shulz <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >>>>> Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>> Date: Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:13 AM >>>>> To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>>> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As discussed at the last forum meeting, Jeff and I drafted an >>>>>>updated >>>>>> version of the MPI rules/voting document that we want to propose to >>>>>>the >>>>>> MPI forum and that, if accepted, is intended to cover the MPI 3.1 >>>>>> ratification. The document is attached and all >>>>>> changes compared to the previous document are marked in red. The >>>>>>idea >>>>>> was to basically write up the process we followed at the last >>>>>>meeting >>>>>>and >>>>>> that most seemed to like. Questions and comments are, of course, >>>>>>welcome >>>>>> our intent is to publish a final version >>>>>> with comments included by May 4th, i.e., 4 weeks before the June >>>>>>forum, >>>>>> and then put this document up for a vote at the meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>_____________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>__ >>>>>>_ >>>>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>>>>> 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 > >-- >Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de >High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ﯯ(0)711/685-65530 >University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ﯯ(0)711 / 685-65832 >Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner >Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307) >_______________________________________________ >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] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Rolf Rabenseifner 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

If the changes would have been smaller, then our March meeting would have finalized MPI-3.1 - I'm pretty sure. Yes, I also feel that there should be a short path. For this, the voting slots for RCM may be on the 3rd day, but should be movable to the last day and substitute the FRM voting slot. Rolf ----- Original Message ----- > From: "schulzm" <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> > To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:06:39 PM > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules > Hi Aurelien, all, > > Jeff and I have discussed this as well, but thought the ratification > process is important enough to also warrant the two vote rule, as do > regular text items. The reasoning was that there will always be some > changes in the RCM (even if they are minor) and this would give people a > time to think about them. However, that is certainly a good point for > discussion to allow a quick path if there are really no changes pending > (something like allowing the RCM and FRM to be at the same meeting with > the two votes separated by at least one night). How does the rest of the > group feel about this? > > Thanks! > > Martin > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ > CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA > > > > > > On 4/14/15, 6:00 AM, "Aurélien Bouteiller" <bouteill(a)icl.utk.edu> wrote: > >>It seems that the new rules make the preparation of the final version >>always require 2 meetings. We should keep the possibility open for a 1 >>meeting final version, for the case when all tickets have been voted and >>implemented long ago and we only need to vote, like it happened for 3.0. >>One could argue that the last release meeting where we had still semantic >>patches on our plate is the outlier rather than the norm. >> >>Aurelien >> >>-- >>Aurélien Bouteiller ~ https://icl.cs.utk.edu/~bouteill/ >> >>> Le 14 avr. 2015 à 01:26, Schulz Martin <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> a écrit : >>> >>> Hi Steve, >>> >>> Sorry, I should have made this clear - our proposal would be to consider >>> the March meeting a successful RCM and then, if the rules are accepted, >>> hold the Chicago meeting in July as the FRM. >>> >>> Thanks for pointing this out, >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>> CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/13/15, 8:16 AM, "Steven Oyanagi" <sko(a)cray.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> A possibly dumb question, but one that needs clarification for those >>>>of us >>>> who were not at the March MPI Forum meeting. The new voting rules >>>>propose >>>> a ³Release Candidate Meeting (RCM)² and a ³Final Ratification Meeting². >>>> For MPI-3.1, is the March meeting considered to be the ³Release >>>>Candidate² >>>> meeting and we are on track to have final ratification of MPI-3.1 in >>>>June, >>>> or will June be the RCM and final ratification would occur in >>>>September? >>>> - Steve >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Martin Shulz <schulzm(a)llnl.gov> >>>> Reply-To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>> Date: Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:13 AM >>>> To: Main mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >>>> Subject: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As discussed at the last forum meeting, Jeff and I drafted an updated >>>>> version of the MPI rules/voting document that we want to propose to >>>>>the >>>>> MPI forum and that, if accepted, is intended to cover the MPI 3.1 >>>>> ratification. The document is attached and all >>>>> changes compared to the previous document are marked in red. The idea >>>>> was to basically write up the process we followed at the last meeting >>>>>and >>>>> that most seemed to like. Questions and comments are, of course, >>>>>welcome >>>>> our intent is to publish a final version >>>>> with comments included by May 4th, i.e., 4 weeks before the June >>>>>forum, >>>>> and then put this document up for a vote at the meeting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Martin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________________________________ >>>>>_ >>>>> Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ >>>>> 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 -- Dr. Rolf Rabenseifner . . . . . . . . . .. email rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de High Performance Computing Center (HLRS) . phone ++49(0)711/685-65530 University of Stuttgart . . . . . . . . .. fax ++49(0)711 / 685-65832 Head of Dpmt Parallel Computing . . . www.hlrs.de/people/rabenseifner Nobelstr. 19, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany . . . . (Office: Room 1.307)

1 0