[Go-essp-tech] ESGF management tools

[Gavin M. Bell]

 Hello *,

As a member of the ESGF committee, and primary architect of the current
infrastructure, I thank you for the recommendation.  At the moment ESGF
is a nascent, cooperative, open-source effort that is currently overseen
by the members of the ESGF committee.  Thus, it seems appropriate that
this idea be something to address to the ESGF committee as a whole for
further discussion.  The ESGF committee is the managing level
organization for ESGF and therefore we need to ensure that the committee
is fully involved in any decision process regarding federation level
activities.

One thing I can suggest would be sending an email to the committee
mailing list, esgf-committee at lists.llnl.gov,  and the committee will
convene and explore this suggestion more thoroughly.

As stated in the original email; this will not preclude individuals from
personally using whatever mechanisms they need to maximize their own
efficiency, however, the ESGF committee has been created to address
management level decisions such as the recommendation that has been made.

As a point of information.  ESG and ESGF are not the same things and
thus are not managed in the same way.  ESG is the current infrastructure
that we are standing up (data nodes and gateways), while ESGF is an open
source, community-involved evolution of technology, tools and
technologists to provide the necessary future infrastructure to support
the scientific community.

Thanks again.


On 8/9/10 7:01 AM, Bryan Lawrence wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> We also talked a fair bit about management tooling at NCAR and NOAA, 
> recognising that we need to do something to help manage our 
> collaborative efforts ...
>
> We've discussed the general principles before, but we were discussing 
> the benefits of trac, jira, etc ... and while we appreciate that at the 
> GFDL meeting there was a desire to use trac, some issues are know with 
> trac - not least that it's difficult to manage multiple sub-projects from 
> one trac instance. 
>
> It is important to note that we are *NOT* implying that individual 
> groups will need to migrate to whatever we use. This is for federation 
> level activities, and it's likely that individual subprojects which are 
> already integrated into local management wont change.
>
> The overriding criteria for whatever we used is that it has to be free 
> and scalable, wth open administration (remote users can administer it 
> easily).
>
> Desirable characteristics included the ability to have a ticket 
> heirarchy, and multiple subprojects and milestones.
>
> Sylvia and Stephan have looked into redmine, and are recommending it for 
> the ESGF level management. 
>
> We'll look into that in the NH autumn.
>
> Cheers
> Bryan
>
> over and out ...
>

-- 
Gavin M. Bell
Lawrence Livermore National Labs
--

 "Never mistake a clear view for a short distance."
       	       -Paul Saffo

(GPG Key - http://rainbow.llnl.gov/dist/keys/gavin.asc)

 A796 CE39 9C31 68A4 52A7  1F6B 66B7 B250 21D5 6D3E

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/go-essp-tech/attachments/20100810/235e4196/attachment.html