[AG-TECH] AG Centralisation

[Rick Stevens]

Don,

Let me try to answer your questions..

At 05:05 PM 10/18/2001 -0600, Don Morton wrote:
>All,
>
>Where does ANL see the future of AG "support" going?  A few of us in
>the western states have discussed the notion that we'd like to be
>doing more regional collaboration over the AG and, in the long
>term, "maybe" it would be beneficial to all if we looked at the prospects
>of creating our own venues, with our own machines, etc.  This is all
>VERY PRELIMINARY thinking, not at all thought out but, clearly
>ANL must have put some thought into how all these new nodes would
>be handled, scheduled, etc.
>
>- Does ANL "want" to be the centre of activity for this expanding AG?

We dont want to be the only Center of activity for expanding the AG, We would
like to help other groups step up to the task of supporting segments of the 
AG community
in a way that avoids fragmenting the community and that can be scaled over 
time.

>- Does ANL "want" to have some centralised control over AG activities?

No.  We want the AG to go the way of the Internet with many groups helping 
it grow and based
on technology that doesnt require centralization.  At the same time like 
the Internet we
realize that there are some services (like DNS and internic related stuff) 
that work better when somewhat centralized.  The experimental distributed 
Venue Server is a step in that direction
and we would like to aggressively work with groups that want to run their 
own Venue servers and to insure that the Venues are linked in a suitable 
fashion so navigation between venue servers is easy and reliable and that 
scheduling can be dispersed in the same way.

>- Does ANL wonder how in heck it ever got into this support role and
>   want a way out???? :) :) :)

We think about this all the time.  We would like to start spreading this 
out among the community..


>- Does ANL have any interest in seeing regional groups set up their own
>   infrastructures, thus offloading some of the demand from them?

Yes definitely.. we would especially like this to be done in ways that 
insure compatibility between venues and infrastructure and maintains the 
spirit of the current AG community.  In fact this topic is one that I would 
like to have a group organize at the next AG retreat which we are starting 
to think about.  Of course some of this can happen earlier than that.


>I know there may be no real long-term game plan, and the answers may
>not at all be clear but, ultimately what I'm trying to understand is
>"if" some of us in the west decided to pursue a path towards semi self-
>reliance with the AG (have our own venues, bridges, etc.), would this
>be viewed as a "good" thing, or would it be discouraged?  I think "our"
>prime motivation in pursuing something like this would be to have some
>set of resources that we could dedicate to ourselves (i.e. we wouldn't
>have to share the toys all the time!!).  There are times when this
>would be advantageous, particularly if the AG starts to become saturated,
>but, of course, the management of a regional infrastructure is a bit
>intimidating.

I think this would be a very good thing especially if we can do it in an 
way that accelerates the growth of the AG and encourages many groups to 
help build new tools and contribute to interfaces etc.  I'm very glad that 
you brought this up..

--Rick



>Thanks,
>
>Don
>
>--
>    Don Morton                     http://www.cs.umt.edu/u/morton/
>    Department of Computer Science       The University of Montana
>    Missoula, MT 59812 | Voice (406) 243-4975 | Fax (406) 243-5139