[AG-TECH] Community Advisory Board

michael j daw michael.daw at manchester.ac.uk
Thu May 26 05:16:42 CDT 2005


I agree that this is a good start and I applaud the sentiment behind it. Sure, I have niggles with the way it was done, but, in the end, there's a fine bunch of individuals on the CAB, and I'm sure they'll do the right thing. Defining its remit and modus operandi is probably a priority though so we know where we are and where we're going. If that can be done openly with reference to the wider community, then that's all to the good. 

And, by the way, I think it's a sign of a healthy community that can have its debates out in the open. I believe quite strongly that closed ways of doing things ultimately lead to outcomes that are not so good as if they were done openly. The AG is a great concept, which is why it raises such passions (at least in me!).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Uram [mailto:turam at mcs.anl.gov] 
> Sent: 25 May 2005 15:39
> To: michael.daw at manchester.ac.uk
> Cc: ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov; cab at accessgrid.org
> Subject: Re: [AG-TECH] Community Advisory Board
> Mike:
> I see your point.  However, you need to understand that what 
> we're after is the
> establishment of community representation.  We had to 
> bootstrap this group in some way,
> and the best way in our minds was to do so based on past 
> contribution to the community.
> In that respect, it favors significant contributors, so yes, 
> ANL, having developed the
> whole of the AG2 software, has significant representation.  
> The geographic representation
> may be somewhat imperfect, but I think the community is 
> represented well in terms of past
> contribution.
> As for voting, I said in my email that the board would 
> self-maintain, so that the board
> could direct its own evolution.  I expect the board will make 
> its choices based on
> activity and contribution to the community.  Making these the 
> criteria for selection will
> encourage community members to contribute.  We looked at 
> other advisory boards, and
> believe that this model is the right choice.
> What we're after with the board is guidance that will satisfy 
> the user community while
> moving forward on collaboration research.  I believe we're 
> well-positioned to make that
> happen.  We really want to involve the community in 
> development directions.  Where before
> there was no board, now there is one; it may not be perfect, 
> but it's a good start.
> Tom
> On 05/25/05 07:12, michael j daw wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > Here's some more community contribution!
> >
> > You say that "members of the group are leaders in the 
> community and represent the groups from around the world." 
> But a quarter of its members hail from ANL and there's no-one 
> representing users in the UK or Europe (I assume Colin at 
> Glasgow is primarily there for his expertise in vic and ric).
> >
> > We at the UK Access Grid Support Centre provide services to 
> 60-70 UK nodes (and growing all the time) - wouldn't it be 
> appropriate for us to have representation? Incidentally, 
> there's also no representation for Germany or Spain, both 
> with growing AG communities and only one representative for 
> the whole of Asia.
> >
> > Is the idea that we will be able to nominate and vote for 
> new members to ensure the board is truly representative?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > PS I'm cc-ing cab at accessgrid.org in the hope that someone 
> on the board there can voice my concerns through its usual channels.
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
> >>[mailto:owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov] On Behalf Of Tom Uram
> >>Sent: 25 May 2005 03:15
> >>To: ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
> >>Subject: [AG-TECH] Community Advisory Board
> >>
> >>
> >>At the AG Retreat, we mentioned that a group had been formed
> >>to provide community input
> >>into the Access Grid effort.  This group will help work on
> >>standardization of the APIs,
> >>provide input to ANL/UC effort on issues of concern to the
> >>community, and act as a general
> >>sounding board for the effort.  Members of the group are
> >>leaders in  the community and
> >>represent the groups from around the world.  The goal is to
> >>give active, interested
> >>parties a chance to provide input to the AG architecture and
> >>design process.  We'll refer
> >>to this group as the Community Advisory Board.  Currently,
> >>the members of the group are:
> >>
> >>Deb Agarwal, LBL
> >>Patrick Bristow, Microsoft
> >>Markus Buchhorn, ANU (Australia)
> >>Brian Corrie, SFU
> >>JongWon Kim, KJIST (Korea)
> >>Ivan Judson, ANL
> >>Susanne Lefvert, UC
> >>Jim Miller, inSORS
> >>Eric Olson, UC
> >>Colin Perkins, UGlasgow
> >>Tom Uram, ANL (Chair)
> >>
> >>This focused group will work on advising development of the
> >>AG, maintaining
> >>interoperability, ensuring stakeholders' concerns are
> >>addressed, etc.  I expect results
> >>generated by this group to be made available publicly to
> >>inform the community.  Broader
> >>(and possibly overlapping) development discussions will occur
> >>on the ag-dev mailing  list.
> >>
> >>The board will maintain itself, adding and removing members
> >>based on their involvement and
> >>level of activity.  The intention is that the board represent
> >>the community, and part of
> >>its charge will be to ensure that it does so effectively over time.
> >>
> >>If you would like to send mail to the collective group you
> >>can do so at cab at accessgrid.org.
> >>
> >>Tom
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >

More information about the ag-tech mailing list