Fwd: RE: next meeting: Tuesday, Feb 18, 15:00 GMT

[Robert Olson]

fyi.

>X-Envelope-From: wdavis at ncsa.uiuc.edu
>X-Envelope-To: scg03-l at bu.edu
>X-Sender: wdavis at mail.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:32:32 -0600
>To: "Michael Daw" <mike.daw at man.ac.uk>,
>         "Jennifer Teig von Hoffman" <jtvh at bu.edu>, "scg03-l" <scg03-l at bu.edu>
>From: Shawn Davis <wdavis at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: RE: next meeting: Tuesday, Feb 18, 15:00 GMT
>Sender: owner-scg03-l at bu.edu
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO version=2.21
>X-Spam-Level:
>
>Mike,
>Looks like a good start, although it will obviously change dramatically if 
>we move to AG 2.0.  As for the volunteer aspect of things, as long as our 
>volunteers have a decent amount of experience working with the AG, this 
>document explains things well enough
>
>Eventually, we'll need to put a section in there regarding DPPT 
>software.  While we don't yet know which software package we'll be using, 
>the likelihood that a server will be required is pretty good.  So there 
>may need to be contingencies planned around that.
>
>Also, I'm curious how easy it will be to connect to a unicast bridge 
>(especially with security issues involved) if we're using AG 2.0.  In the 
>current state of 2.0, I don't think it is as straight-forward as it is in 
>AG 1.x.
>-Shawn
>
>At 03:28 PM 2/12/2003 +0000, Michael Daw wrote:
>>Thanks to Jennifer for putting my spot on the agenda. I'm slightly concerned
>>that no-one has looked at my Technical Support Plan (or at least told me
>>about it...). Below is the text of my original e-mail on the subject.
>>
>>Just as a sort of friendly prod, I think the following people should
>>especially look it over. Of course, I'd welcome feedback from anyone on any
>>part of the doc!
>>
>>* Stephen (for general technical OK-ness)
>>* Bob, Terry (for possible incompatabilities with AG2.0 - see note in
>>original e-mail)
>>* Jeff, Shawn, Barbara (because of possible implications on volunteers)
>>* Martin (because remote sites are particularly affected by this stuff)
>>* Jonathan ([hi, Jonathan!] because I included our rough recording plan in
>>this doc as at that time, your role was vacant. You could either help
>>contribute a more fulsome recording section to this doc, or I'll take this
>>section out entirely now that you're here. Your call.)
>>
>>And a reminder that the most pertinent part of the document for now is
>>getting the number of volunteer sites right. I intend to call for these
>>volunteers next week.
>>
>>My original e-mail
>>------------------
>>Here is a link to version 0.1 of the Technical Support Plan, formerly known
>>as the Venues and Contingency Plan:
>>http://people.man.ac.uk/~zzcgumd/docs/TechnicalSupportPlan.doc
>>http://people.man.ac.uk/~zzcgumd/docs/TechnicalSupportPlan.pdf
>>
>>Note the version number - 0.1 - because it *is* a draft. Please let me know
>>if you have any comments on it at all.
>>
>>The priority for comments is to make sure I'm right about how many
>>servers/sites we'll need and their specifications, because we'll be calling
>>for volunteers soon (probably just after the next SCG03 meeting, when we've
>>had a chance to discuss this).
>>
>>Something to note: the whole thing is based upon technology as it exists
>>today. Therefore, the plan may change when AG2.0 comes on line (I'm thinking
>>mainly of the Venues Server and possible integration of QuickBridge and the
>>Observer Sites Reflector into AG2.0). And, in fact, I intend to download and
>>try out the AG2.0 Venues Server shortly. If all goes well, the plan will
>>incorporate these added features. If not, then the plan should work even if
>>SC Global was next week. However, if you (especially the ANL boys/girls)
>>spot anything that obviously won't work with AG2.0, or will require further
>>tweaking, it would be useful to shout now.
>>
>>--Mike
>