Child pages
  • 20191204- Review L2 Diagrams demonstrating interconnections across project
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Decisions:

 Summary

Description

  





Action Items:

Summary
Description
Responsible
Due Date

Create two diagrams (see notes below) for each L2 QMA-417 - Getting issue details... STATUS QMA-416 - Getting issue details... STATUS QMA-415 - Getting issue details... STATUS QMA-414 - Getting issue details... STATUS QMA-413 - Getting issue details... STATUS QMA-412 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Based on the Combined Diagrams created by each L2 area,  create two diagram versions - Dave Hart view (RAS Diagram), Bob S view (ECSS Diagram)

1/16/19



 

 








 

Notes/ Discussion items:

Action Items:

  1. Based on the Combined Diagrams created by each L2 areas,  create two diagram versions - Dave Hart view (RAS Diagram), Bob S view (ECSS Diagram)
    1. What do you do? (Dave view)
    2. How do you get it done? (Bob view)
  2. Will discuss this at SMT meeting in January

RAS Diagram

  • Has been used for many years
  • Break down in 3: Policy, Process, Planning
  • Intended to be high level
  • Clear connection with Users, CEE, ECSS, and SPs
  • Message: the units don't work independently, but interacts with other units in XSEDE
  • This diagram is intended to be simplistic, if the diagram is too complicated then no one understands it.

PgO

  • Look at internal & external perspectives 
  • Providing governance and oversight, project management & coordination
  • Bidirectional operations to CEE, ECSS, XSI. Ops and RAS
  • Two-way street to NSF, XAB, SPF, UAC and Subaward partners
    • Taking back recommendations
    • This is how we're managing recommendation and coordination across the project
  • External: 
    • Provide overall communication and evaluation services 
    • Bidirectional communications to  
  • Feeds into science results

Ops

  • Interface with potential partners
  • Different folks interface with Ops
    • Collaboration user services and resources
    • Provide support, etc

 

  • If we're invisible we're good, otherwise not good
  • Services in the middle
    • Helps users and service providers to leverage the services to deliver science
    • Ops are the invisible thing in the middle
  • Ops touch everybody but if they're doing the job right, they are invisible
  • XSEDE staff includes all the L2 areas
  • Compared to RAS - RAS is a black box. Ops is too low level?

XCI

  • Complexity vs simplicity dilemma
  • 2 orange boxes at the bottom- help describe what the interactions are
  • Input to XCI: Users, CEE, Peer Infrastructures, Service Providers, Software Providers
  • CI Needs and requirements
    • XCI uses agile methods to deliver services
    • Involve stakeholders; users and operators
    • Evaluate producst that come from vendors and other sources
  • Deliver products:
    • Package software
    • SaaS services
    • CI Consulting
    • Production support
    • Engineering best practices
    • Research software portal
    • CI Discovery Services
  • Target audience:
    • Users
    • Developers
    • XSEDE operations
    • XSEDE SPs
    • Campus SPs
  • Goals: to enable science
  • Engage a designer to create a standard template that will be used in all L2 areas

ECSS

  • A different approach - more minimalist approach, an alternate view
  • Focus on: how does XSEDE workas a project and how does it work in L2 areas?
  • ECSS center view - highlight how ECSS interacts with all L2 areas
    • Ops much more foundational
    • RAS: close to 800 reviews last year
    • PgO: review XSEDE science stories
    • XCI: expand XSEDE software capabilities via community collaboration
    • CEE: develop and deliver training content
  • Exercise purpose: to show that all L2 areas are integrated/interacted
  • Many other interactions - but this diagram only show the major ones
  • John likes this diagram, you can replace the middle part with another L2 area.
  • This diagram is more explicit about dependencies of L2 areas
  • Can we make this diagram dynamic? 
  • Who's the audience? How do we communicate to the audience. 
  • Initial intent: target the review panel in NSF. 
  • Not sure how much community cares with the interactions.

CEE

  • Model it after RAS
  • CEE depends on ESTEO
    • Developing traning content hand-in-hand with ESTEO
    • Every reason to cooperate
  • One way arrow: Users, SPs and Students - 
  • Output: Users, Future Workforce, Public
  • RASS and UII work closely
  • User engagement and CXI 
    • Like Dana's suggestions to go by tasks
  • Goals: science results
  • May end up with two diagrams
  • How does CEE produces? 
  • How does it accomplish science results?
    • What it produce
    • How they get it done?
  • May need to represent students in Future Workforce

How do we create a diagram to meet the panel review next June?

May need to show the Risk of splitting up the L2 areas. If we show no risk then it is eay for the NSF to split up the L2 areas.

Risk has to be part of the process of creating and showing these diagrams - point out the risks.

Like the word dependencies - stronger word than interconnections.

John likes the notion of two diagrams.


Details:

 

 

  • No labels