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

Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Schulz Martin 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

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 >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Schulz Martin 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

Hi Rolf, all, My apologies - that was a typo. The MPI forum meeting, which we are suggesting to be the FRM, is indeed scheduled for the first week of >>JUNE<<. Thanks, Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA On 4/14/15, 1:52 AM, "Rolf Rabenseifner" <rabenseifner(a)hlrs.de> wrote: >> hold the Chicago meeting in July as the FRM. > >I booked my flight for June / not for July: > > June 1 - 4, 2015 Chicago, IL, USA > >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 7:26:14 AM >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules > >> 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 > >-- >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) >_______________________________________________ >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 Aurélien Bouteiller 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

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

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Rolf Rabenseifner 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

> hold the Chicago meeting in July as the FRM. I booked my flight for June / not for July: June 1 - 4, 2015 Chicago, IL, USA 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 7:26:14 AM > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules > 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 -- 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

Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Schulz Martin 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

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 >> >> >> >

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Steven Oyanagi 13 Apr '15

13 Apr '15

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 “Release Candidate Meeting (RCM)” and a “Final Ratification Meeting”. For MPI-3.1, is the March meeting considered to be the “Release Candidate” 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 > > >

1 0

Proposed Update the MPI Forum Rules
by Schulz Martin 13 Apr '15

13 Apr '15

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

1 0

Agenda for June Meeting
by Schulz Martin 01 Apr '15

01 Apr '15

Hi all, I added a first agenda skeleton for the June meeting to the MPI forum website at: http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/2015/06/agenda.php The details will change, but due to the nature of the meeting (where we want to ratify MPI 3.1) some things will be different than usual. In particular, we¹ll start with a plenary on Monday covering the voting rules (will send a draft for those soon) and the last changes to MPI standard (this way we¹ll have extra time to make final fixes). Also, we¹ll have two voting blocks, one on Wednesday and one on Thursday. Further, we¹ll have the requested discussion on MPI 4.0 on Thursday morning after the votes. Please take this into account when making travel arrangements. This will necessarily limit the time we have for WGs and other plenary issues. We can shift between these two parts as needed, but for now, I reserved a 3/4 day for each. WG chairs, please send me any requests for WG time, plenary time, reading requests and votes rather sooner than later, so we can plan accordingly. Thanks! Martin ________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, schulzm(a)llnl.gov, http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

1 0