Is there anything stopping you from providing feedback via trac now that you know the two tickets that have been proposed? Because if there isn't, I propose we defer any further debate on WG association until San Jose. And if I might provide guidance, general discussion should be attached to ticket 381. 461 is deliberately constrained in scope. And of course you can create a new ticket of your own if you find the two existing ones inadequate. Jeff Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 30, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Richard Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, this is where there is a mismatch. I am leaving working out the details of the hybrid programming group the that working group. Had not idea that the point-to-point Info Keys discussion was even still going on – and it seemed to have dropped quite a few of the items that were on the list last time I saw it, which was on the order of a year ago.
Nothing to do with academic – all to do with getting the appropriate input.
Rich
From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 5:02 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket
I dispute that the value of correcting this error two years after the forum decided in Chicago on this course of action, where you were present.
You're right in that academic sense that makes you feel good but doesn't actually make anything better.
Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 30, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Richard Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
Why are you insisting on turning this into something that is it is not. This is a p2p issue, and belongs in that group. Hybrid is to discuss the hybrid programming issues.
Rich
From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 4:40 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket
Do you see so much value in using what you see as the proper email list for this that everyone in hybrid should switch to p2p, as opposed to you signing up for the hybrid list? Because you appear to be the only person who feels left out.
The forum agenda is sent to everyone, so everyone who attends f2f knows where this ticket is going to be discussed. It is only the email list discussion that is affected by the issue you raise. And we all know that email discussion is not canonical in the forum decision making process.
For what it's worth, I'm signed up to almost every working group email list to ensure I don't miss anything I care about. And I check the forum trac every few weeks to see what new tickets have been added.
Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 30, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Richard Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
Has nothing to do with central, has to do with the type of topics folks would expect to see out of wg’s. This topic is a ptp topic, and belongs in the p2p wg, where folks would expect to see such items. We want involvement here well before it becomes a proposal that makes it to plenary discussion.
I am not maligning the work done so far at all, just suggesting an approach that I think is more likely to broader involvement earlier in the process.
I am proposing to move this to the p2p WG.
Rich
From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 4:04 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket
So you think p2p WG is more central that hybrid WG? I don't understand what solution you're proposing. Everyone will see it when it's ready for plenary. Or do you propose a new method by which tickets are brought to the forum? You need to be constructive here, not just malign the efforts others have put into this already.
Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Richard Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
I can certainly do this, but this has potentially broad implications to a central part of the MPI standard, so discussion needs to be in a natural and visible place. This is not the first time this sort of idea has been raised (I remember this being discussed well before the Forum was restarted almost 7 years ago) and it was shot down quickly, so need to make sure we have a broad and well thought out discussion here.
Rich
From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 3:52 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket
I recommend signing up for the hybrid WG email list and adding yourself to the cc box of both tickets.
December in San Jose is a great time to discuss these tickets and you'll be current on both at that point.
Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:32 AM, Richard Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
It has some of the interested parties, not all. I am interested in such items, and thought that the whole topic had fallen off the plate, so was very surprised to hear there is a concrete proposal, which in my view is incomplete.
Rich
From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 3:29 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket
Hybrid WG already had all the interested parties and was active. I don't recall p2p WG was particularly active when discussion of 381 started ~2 years ago.
As always, every member of the forum can participate in any WG and 381/461 were always discussed in the open for anyone to see.
As it currently stands, p2p WG has more than enough to discuss without this ticket.
Note also that some of the info keys discussed have a greater impact when threads are involved, hence are connected to hybrid.
Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Richard Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
Why is such a proposal coming out of the hybrid working group ? This is more appropriate for the point-to-point working group. Not that it is that critical what the group name is, but more to get feedback from a wide range of folks interested is such topics.
Rich
From: mpi-forum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Dinan Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 8:58 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket
Hi All,
The hybrid working group would like to put forward ticket #461 (https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/461) for consideration for MPI 3.1, with a formal reading at the upcoming December meeting.
This ticket proposes the no_any_tag and no_any_source info keys, on which we have achieved consensus. We continue to have vigorous and productive debate on additional communicator info keys proposals that have been captured in #381. We will pursue these additional proposals for MPI 4.0.
Thanks and see you in December, ~Jim.
_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum