Ok. If there are just a few of us, we don't need to schedule a working group session. ~Jim. On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Rajeev Thakur <[email protected]> wrote:

It would be good for those who will be there to discuss the issues in Rolf's ticket 456 (https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/456). Only 3 people from the RMA working group will be there I think.

Rajeev

On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:48 PM, Schulz Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi Jim,

Meeting in parallel with tools is certainly fine – however, when I asked the WG chairs (in this case Bill and Rajeev), the feeling was that there would not be enough RMA people present for this to make sense.

Martin

________________________________________________________________________ Martin Schulz, [email protected], http://scalability.llnl.gov/ CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA

From: Jim Dinan <[email protected]> Reply-To: MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group < [email protected]> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 2:31 PM To: MPI WG Remote Memory Access working group < [email protected]> Subject: [mpiwg-rma] WG Meeting in Japan

Hi All,

Should we request working group time at the upcoming meeting? If RMA WG members are available during the Monday tools meeting, we could meet in parallel. Apart from that, the schedule looks pretty packed.

Best, ~Jim. _______________________________________________ mpiwg-rma mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma

_______________________________________________ mpiwg-rma mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-rma