<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffcc">
Hi Cecilia et. al.<br>
<br>
On 1/20/12 1:56 PM, Cecelia DeLuca wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F19B8E8.8050201@noaa.gov" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thanks Luca.
Here is a plan. I recognize that it is stupid and probably
counterproductive to continue making suggestions. Unfortunately
that does not seem to stop me. I think these things should
not be put off and would not take very long.
</pre>
</blockquote>
No no no... not at all... certainly it is never stupid and not
counterproductive (especially coming from you).<br>
Your plan is clearly cogent and sound - the devil is in the details.
I <i>tried</i> to not mince too finely on points in the interleaved
response below. Many of the items in this plan are well underway
and others are burgeoning. It is always good to have a plan. :-)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F19B8E8.8050201@noaa.gov" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
1. Do the ESGF demo next Tues from 8-9.
</pre>
</blockquote>
nod<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F19B8E8.8050201@noaa.gov" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2. Have the metrics discussion from 9-10.
</pre>
</blockquote>
What kind of metrics? (pardon if this is a silly question - just
want clarification "metrics" means many things to many people)<br>
Or, do you mean matrix?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F19B8E8.8050201@noaa.gov" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">3. Start putting together a list of users whose input
you think would be useful. This is a good idea even if they
only ever end up reviewing the p2p system.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Here at PCMDI we have had a handful of key scientists looking at,
using and critiquing the P2P system we are participating in
building. The feedback they provided has been driving most of the
changes that have been made and the overall direction of the
development, as they should. They continue to review and give
feedback that we triage and address.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F19B8E8.8050201@noaa.gov" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">4. Update the PCMDI gateway so that it is at least to 1.3.4
and is in the best shape it can be given the circumstances.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I think this has been done.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F19B8E8.8050201@noaa.gov" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">5. Update the wiki on the ESGF site so that the
status of all gateways and nodes is current.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes, we should have a way to view the overall federation status, but
I am not convinced that the manual task of updating a wiki is quite
the best use of resources and time. In terms of the P2P system, the
mechanics of the system itself would obviate this kind of manual
reporting. Not to mince things too finely... yes, indeed having
this information would be useful.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F19B8E8.8050201@noaa.gov" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">6. Identify people and a schedule for periodically testing the
status of the federation and keeping that status on the
wiki up to date. Create a minimum set of federation-level
tests and post them. This can be really minimal but it
is important to start and create a routine. Useful both
now and later.
</pre>
</blockquote>
As mentioned, there is a small group of testers, both programmers
and scientists - certainly we can and <b>will</b> expand the group
of test (vanguard) users. Luca has put together documentation on
the minimal set of federation tests as you mentioned. Also, there
will be a series of automated tests that should provide a baseline
for the system mechanics. John has been emphasizing testing and is
establishing a testing working group to focus on addressing this
issue.<br>
<br>
The idea is that everyone should use the system and post bugs when
they find them. And even better yet fix them ;-). IMHO - First
things first... it is key to have a core from which to grow. This
core is what has been established and to be demonstrated (the ESGF
P2P Node Stack).<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F19B8E8.8050201@noaa.gov" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">7. Create a website where known bugs of the production system
that affect users are listed, in terms that users
can understand. Make users aware of it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
nod<br>
Currently we are using our bug tracking system
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://esgf.org/bugzilla/">http://esgf.org/bugzilla/</a>) and mailing lists (esgf-node-dev,
esgf-node-user) to get feedback from users.<br>
We will also be using the website, our blog, twitter page (I know...
I know...), and RSS feed notification as conduits for disseminating
information (news, updates, etc.) to the community. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F19B8E8.8050201@noaa.gov" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Bonus points:
8. Get together a management body with key stakeholders so
that decisions are backed up and can be communicated more
easily.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Nod, the governance structure will be formalized and posted....
among other things.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F19B8E8.8050201@noaa.gov" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Maybe some of this is already done. (Going to hide now.)
</pre>
</blockquote>
nod<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F19B8E8.8050201@noaa.gov" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Cecelia
ps. I looked up polemicize and tried not to.
</pre>
</blockquote>
:-)<br>
I personally don't eschew polemics, such engagements can lead to
quite fruitful ends - though they do require a thick skin.<br>
<br>
As I mentioned... first things first... and that is to meet on
Tuesday and introduce the P2P system to the go-essp community
(again).... then we go from there. IMHO<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F19B8E8.8050201@noaa.gov" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 1/20/2012 11:37 AM, Cinquini, Luca (3880) wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Cecilia,
certainly, as we discussed many times, feedback from users if of the outmost important, and being responsive to the that feedback is even more important:)
This can take the form of scientists that use the system and offer their suggestions freely, or of a formal users review board for ESGF. We probably need both. And off course developers
need to estimate what is possible and what's not, and in which time frame. So we should devote some of the future GO-ESSP calls to put something like this in place. Looks like a busy few months ahead..
thanks, Luca
On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Cecelia DeLuca wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Luca, maybe I'm wrong but this list seems overwhelmingly populated by
developers,
not by scientist users.
It would be good to get an "external" scientist user group together.
Jennifer and
Gary are a start, but it also seems important to include some scientists
who are not as
closely tied to infrastructure as the folks who would normally show up here.
I do think that, as tough as it might be, Stephen's list also needs to
be reviewed by
developers. That discussion must be concerned with not just the current
state of the system, which
is what users see, but also the future of the system, and developers are
best positioned
to comment on that.
-- Cecelia
On 1/20/2012 10:12 AM, Cinquini, Luca (3880) wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Gary,
I think everybody on this list is invited - just like it happened for the previous one. I hope you can be there :).
thanks, Luca
On Jan 20, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Gary Strand wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">How many users of the overall system, outside of the developers, have been invited to these demos?
On Fri Jan 20, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Sylvia Murphy wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Everyone,
It seems to me that this decsion is not going to be made through demos, but by a careful analysis of the criteria for CMIP5 and how each software stack stands up to that criteria.
We need an evaluation and testing strategy, preferably involving key stakeholders who can safely examine both packages.
Deciding on how to do this, the timelines etc seems to me to be our highest priority.
2 cents
Sylvia
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Cinquini, Luca (3880)<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Luca.Cinquini@jpl.nasa.gov"><Luca.Cinquini@jpl.nasa.gov></a> wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I think it will be extremely important to give P2P and Gateway 2.0 the exact same amount of time to showcase their capabilities, otherwise how is CMIP5 going to make an informed decision ?
Yes, P2P has been demonstrated one time before, but the gateway has been demoed many more times. So I beg to disagree with you... off course, ultimately the decision of what the agenda should be lies with the GO-ESSP PIs.
thanks, Luca
On Jan 20, 2012, at 9:41 AM,<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stephen.pascoe@stfc.ac.uk"><stephen.pascoe@stfc.ac.uk></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Luca,
I really don't think this is a good use of time. I know P2P is improving all the time but I've seen a number of demos now. It would be more effective to go through the matrix and you describe how P2P meets the requirements or how you plan to meet them.
Depending on who's on the call, we may be in a position to discuss the GW2/P2P deployment strategy for CMIP5 in more detail. Therefore, I wouldn't want to schedule something that is likely to take up most of the hour.
Stephen.
---
Stephen Pascoe +44 (0)1235 445980
Centre of Environmental Data Archival
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK
-----Original Message-----
From: Cinquini, Luca (3880) [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Luca.Cinquini@jpl.nasa.gov">mailto:Luca.Cinquini@jpl.nasa.gov</a>]
Sent: 20 January 2012 14:29
To: Eric Nienhouse
Cc: Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,RALSP); <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:go-essp-tech@ucar.edu">go-essp-tech@ucar.edu</a>
Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 Web interface requirements matrix
Hi Stephen,
thanks for the matrix...
I would like to suggest that we start with a full demo of the P2P system on Tuesday. The gateway 2.0 demo took a full hour - we will try to make the P2P demo shorter, but if it ends up taking a full hour, we can always discuss the matrix at the next call.
thanks, Luca
On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Eric Nienhouse wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Stephen,
Thank you for this latest version of the matrix. It will be good to
discuss it further on Tuesday. I would like to understand the ranking
numbers and planned evaluation process and hope this is something we can
address on the call.
Attached is an update to the previous version I was just about to send
as your recent email arrived. Please note 4 highlighted rows. (2 fall
in the non-functional category.) I trust they can be incorporated and
discussed.
Indeed the CMIP5 system(s) are under continued development and
enhancement and the matrix inherently has some relation to the
architectural choices up to this point. Sticking with the current
replication section for the time being seems appropriate.
Thanks,
-Eric
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stephen.pascoe@stfc.ac.uk">stephen.pascoe@stfc.ac.uk</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all,
I have merged Luca's suggestions into the CMIP5 GUI requirements
matrix and reorganised it substantially. Apart from those items that
are architecture-specific I include most of them, sometimes under a
different section.
I'm aware there are some architectural assumptions embedded in this
sheet. For instance, there has been a recent discussion about whether
master/replica is the right model for depicting replicas. It's a pity
we're having this discussion now! For the moment I've kept the
replication section as-is.
All scores are my opinion based on variable information. Sometimes
I've assumed something works or is planned in P2P without verifying
it, sometimes I've assumed it doesn't after a quick test. Where there
is a "?" anywhere it would be really useful for the developers to
contribute. To this end I'd like to go through the sheet on Tuesday,
or make a start at least, so that I can clarify what some items mean.
I know a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since I started this
process. No matter what strategic decisions the CMIP5 cores centres
take on our future deployments I hope this matrix will be useful in
focusing on the core CMIP5 requirements.
Thanks,
Stephen.
---
Stephen Pascoe +44 (0)1235 445980
Centre of Environmental Data Archival
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK
*From:* Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,RALSP)
*Sent:* 10 January 2012 14:32
*To:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:go-essp-tech@ucar.edu">go-essp-tech@ucar.edu</a>
*Subject:* CMIP5 Web interface requirements matrix
Dear all,
To help the CMIP5 centres plan our upgrade to the next major release
of the CMIP5 archive system BADC has been collating a
spreadsheet of web interface requirements with input from PCMDI, DKRZ
and MOHC (see attached). We hope to use this sheet as a tool to plan
migration of the CMIP5 web interface at the main CMIP5 centres: PCMDI,
BADC and DKRZ.
The sheet is still work in progress and there is lots to discuss and
clarify. I have begun to suggest scores for the three systems being
considered, Gateway 1.3.4, Gateway 2.0 and P2P, but these are
speculative at this stage, particularly for the P2P system with which
I have the least experience.
If there is time I'd like to briefly introduce the sheet at the
GO-ESSP telco today and schedule a time for a more thorough discussion.
Cheers,
Stephen.
---
Stephen Pascoe +44 (0)1235 445980
Centre of Environmental Data Archival
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK
--
Scanned by iCritical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu">GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech">http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><CMIP5_GUI_Requirements_v20120110_ejn.xlsx>_______________________________________________
GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu">GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech">http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">--
Scanned by iCritical.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu">GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech">http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech</a>
--
******************************************
Sylvia Murphy
NESII/CIRES/NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80305
Time Zone: U.S. Mountain
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/nesii/">http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/nesii/</a>
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sylvia.murphy@noaa.gov">sylvia.murphy@noaa.gov</a>
Phone: 303-497-7753
_______________________________________________
GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu">GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech">http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Gary Strand
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:strandwg@ucar.edu">strandwg@ucar.edu</a>
_______________________________________________
GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu">GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech">http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu">GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech">http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu">GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech">http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Gavin M. Bell
--
"Never mistake a clear view for a short distance."
-Paul Saffo
</pre>
</body>
</html>