Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendees:

Canonical Meeting Template (as a reminder):

1. Review of meeting agenda
2. Addressing issues

  • Description/Status of issue
  • Review of action items from previous meetings if any
  • Recommended actions and discussion of same
  • Close issue or identify next action items

3. Status updates from SMT members

  • Status update on significant activities
  • Review of prior open issues if any (and not addressed earlier in agenda)
  • Identification of new issues if any (and not addressed earlier in agenda)

Agenda/Notes

1. Review of Meeting Agenda: Any comments/additions? 


2. XSEDE2 Reporting (Leslie Froeschl

Previously:

  • Previous discussion archived: SMT Meeting - September 10, 2020
  • (9/24) No update
  • (10/8): IPR13 coming up starting first week of November. L3 text will be due 11/3 and L2 text 11/5. Please try to be on time!
  • (10/22): Reminder about IPR13 (see 10/8 reminder). Risk review went out late yesterday. Please review your risks by 10/31 at the latest. 
  • (11/5): L2 inputs for IPR13 due today!

    • Linda: difficult discussing some KPIs performance since we don't have in-person training. Do our best work in-person with students & faculty. Feel that we're losing touch with the community. 
      • John: Best we can do is just interpret what is going on as best we can. Will add note to summary about impacts of COVID19 on outreach efforts & other in-person efforts. Ok to qualify that we're speculating because we don't have experience in this space. Talk about strategies we're taking: how much we're doing virtual, assessment of virtual events/contacts. 
      • Trying think about strategies & mentioned that in report response. 
      • Kelly: some things have been surprisingly positive (esp student programs), but exhibiting is really difficult. Taking a toll on staff. 
      • Students in current programs were recruited last year. Now we should be recruiting for the rest of the plan year. Getting word of mouth from existing/past participants, but recruiting pipeline is 6-12 mos and we're not filling it. 
      • Some universities have stopped travel through May already.
  • (12/3) IPR13 was submitted on time. Process went very smooth. Thanks to all! 
  • (12/17) Reminder to update your L2 section of the draft transition plan by 1/12/2021

Discussion:

Decisions:


3. SPF L2 Application: University of Kentucky, Johns Hopkins, Move from L2 to L1: Purdue Anvil, Texas A&M (Ron Payne

Previously:

  • (11/25) Ron sent SMT the University of Kentucky & Purdue applications for review.
  • (12/3) 
    • UK: Bob sent question (was sent to UK): The applicant writes: “All 5 nodes will be dedicated for XSEDE use/allocation with any unused resources being available for use by researchers at the University of Kentucky”.

      How exactly will this be done? In order for the nodes to be dedicated for XSEDE use, jobs launched by UK researchers will have to be preemptable. This could be a serious issue since some of the key large memory apps, such as de novo genome assembly and phylogenetic tree inference, can have long run times.

      • Only 5 nodes. Is it worth the effort? 
      • Large memory node is a specialized resource. 
      • 3TB nodes. Bridges2 covers large memory, but only have a handful. Had a lot of large mem nodes at PSC, but found many jobs could run on less. Had a bunch of big projects though that filled them up for a few months. Reduced number on Bridges2. Data driven modes of work are bursty. Need a lot for a short amount of time. 
      • Reluctant to add another resource, but would it be feasible to burst from Bridges2 to UK machine? Submit large mem requests, and they could run transparently on UK machine. Allocate through Bridges2. 
        • Doubt UK wants to be transparently behind Bridges. You enter XSEDE to be part of the national community. Guess everybody would like brand recognition. 
      • Award was made in 2016. Towards end of award. Understanding that this would be allocated by XSEDE but it hasn't so far. 
        • Can we even say no since NSF said it's to be allocated? 
      • They need to reply to questions.
      • At what level are we reviewing their operational policies/practices? If dedicating to XSEDE means everything needs to be preemptable... KY users at mercy of the few XSEDE users. There are some options. We should be careful about specifying how to operate the system.
      • Not a whole lot of info out there about their award. Appears to be 50 large memory nodes, so 5 is 10% of the nodes. Should clarify that. 2016 acquisition of MRI 1626364. Award states they will join XSEDE. 

        https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1626364&HistoricalAwards=false

        • What would be minimal amount of time we would consider for accepting? Minimum of 2 years. 

      • KY is EPSCOR state.
      • Don't want to begrudge anyone trying to get into the national landscape.
      • Need to make it work with them. 
      • Award ends last July 2020. Extension? How long will this be available?  
      • Fabric award: follow-on to Genie. Wanted to be a means of allowing researchers that are in XSEDE that have interest in access Fabric to have an easy gateway. 
      • Lifetime of machine at this point? 
      • How they support that machine since end date is past? 

    • Purdue Anvil (forwarded by Ron on 11/11)
      • Track 2 Cat 1 system 
      • Request new letter stating: Should be modified to reflect that Anvil ( not Purdue) becoming L1 while Purdue remains L2 provider. 
      • Should state how much of GPU & large memory resources will be made available through XSEDE

Discussion:

  • Kentucky: Approved. 
    • They asked to be on list of allocations for this cycle. They will be included.
  • Johns Hopkins: Approved. 
  • Texas A&M: FASTER system configuration is not set yet. They will provide updated letter once the configuration is identified. Letter reflects feedback provided, so comfortable moving forward. Approved. 
  • Anvil as L1: Approved. 
    • What does it mean for an institution to be a L2 provider? Usually means it's an MRI, but other examples exist. NICS used to have a machine, still L2 because of history & connection with XSEDE. Still need to connect, be part of allocations process, be able to connect. Can have gray area due to historical info. SGCI is L2: not providing computational resource, but they provide a service that XSEDE wants to take advantage of.  
    • Ruth Marinshaw This is an issue that the SPF should take up next year. Discussed minimum duration of cycles/services.
    • L1 & L2 requires same amount of integration. They don't get same level of support so usually negotiate with them. Can't opt out of allocations process or AIME. Documentation needs to convey what is negotiated. Important to have flexibility for special circumstances.
  • Ron will send acceptance letters to all four of these, make sure updated LOIs get to Ruth, Tabitha. 

Decisions:


4. Terminology Task Force (Linda Akli ) 

Previously:

  • Previous discussion archived at SMT Meeting - September 24, 2020
  • (10/12) Re-added to agenda
  • (10/22) List is being sent out by email. Look at the list and provide any feedback (anything should be added/removed). Include source of where you identified that as a problematic term. Based on this list the team will start cleaning up website etc.
    • "White paper" is a term on the list. "Position paper" is a better option
    • Susan & team has done a great job!
  • (11/5) Thank you for input/comments. Task force is going back through spreadsheet to add column on context. Want to order terms to make sure those that would be most likely used by XSEDE appear at the top. Should bring back to SMT and then will lay out a plan for going through content to clean up terminology as needed. 
  • (12/3) Open MP/MPI session at SC? John has not heard anything but will follow up with them. 
    • ACM has posted something on their site with about 5 terms. 
    • Will add link to Terminology Statement at bottom of workshop page. 
    • Boz involved with the group, so he will help disseminate info about this. 
    • Statement was sent to the group earlier this week. 
      • "While some third-party materials may be beyond our editorial control" sounds negative. Want to accept feedback whether in our control or not. Like to have it included so we acknowledge there are things beyond our control. Suggest replacing "While" with "We recognize..." 
      • Final suggestion: "We encourage you to reach out to... as we recognize that some third-party materials..."
    • Task force will present status/plans during quarterly meeting
    • "Words matter" is important. Might streamline: 

      Words matter. XSEDE's commitment to fostering and promoting an inclusive environment for all users, staff, and the wider community extends to all language and terminology all of our materials. We encourage you to reach out to the XSEDE Terminology Task Force with any feedback, recognizing that some third-party materials may be beyond our editorial control.

Discussion:

  • The terminology task force is ready for the SMT to look over the terminology list (noting that it is a living list). https://drive.google.com/file/d/187KiCy79XUrqP2IljFhc0Wi3cKdDRAd8/view?usp=sharing
  • List includes terms, sources of terms, some context info. 
  • Provide feedback by January 8, 2021. Anything missing? 
  • Soft finalization of doc in January (noting that it is a living doc that will be updated regularly). 
  • Other groups that could benefit from reviewing this (CaRCC). Could be a service to share more broadly when you're ready. 
  • 2 group members have volunteered to participate in ACM terminology process. 

Decisions:


5. Voting for 2 new XAB members (John Towns

Previously:

Discussion:

  • Concern about process–is asking for a 250 word interest statement too much? 
  • Everyone else provided statements 
  • Not saying no to 3rd candidate who did not respond, but she would need to respond in order to be considered. 

Decisions:

  • Approval of Rylan Chong and Ana Gonzalez as new XAB members (unanimous) 
  • John Towns will send welcome letters to them.


6. OSN participation in current allocation submission cycle (Tabitha Samuel

Previously:

  • (12/17) Added to agenda. 

Discussion:

  • Slightly different from other SPs. Networking project across 5 sites. They want to be part of allocation cycle. Tabitha has tried to engage with them but finding it difficult. 
  • Concern that if they are open for allocations they might not be ready come April.
  • Tabitha is meeting with them to try to gauge how ready they are. Users need some reference if they want to request these resources.
  • Need level of confidence they'll complete the rest of the steps. No one single person to talk to, and seems like things don't get done. 
  • Expect when this becomes available, people won't have a good idea of what to do with it. Need documentation about what it is, use cases they can support to help proposers better understand what they offer. No one will request if there isn't promotion of what they offer. If it's important for us to support them, we likely can without much impact. But is that good if they don't have anyone driving from their end. Problem if someone requests and we can't deliver. 
  • NSF program officer asked to be kept informed about this, but only got one status a long time ago, and no work has happened. We could get sucked into the blame for their lack of coordination. 
  • Derek Simmel, James Glasgow made request to Ken Hackworth. 
  • Is there a way burden can be put on them to document how it could be used, etc.? Make available and see what happens. Setting themselves up for failure if they haven't done basic groundwork, but maybe they can't do that until they're integrated. 
  • We have checklists for a reason. If they can't complete checklist, not a good idea to put it out there as allocated resource. 
  • Which of the 5 sites want to be allocated? 

Decisions:

  • RDR & tech bits (one paragraph of recommended use of system) by next week, complete user doc by Jan 8 if they want to proceed.  Commit to having integration completed by March 31. 


Around the call up

Follow this basic outline:

  • Status update on significant activities
  • Review of prior open issues if any (and not addressed earlier in agenda)
  • Identification of new issues if any (and not addressed earlier in agenda)
  • Identification of recent improvements implemented

Updates from SMT members:

  • PI (John/Ron) - 
    • UAC & XAB meetings earlier this week. Went short with XAB–covered issue of draft transition plan and a few members offered to review the doc.
    • Very close to naming new deputy director for XCI 
  • Tim
  • CEE (Kelly) - 
    • Maytal: released improved account creation in user portal. Cleans up info gathered from users, how we gather from orgs to not clutter organization table. 
    • Dave: tickets currently going to RAS to handle. Meeting to see what we're getting and that we know how to respond. Then will coordinate with XOC about them picking up some tasks. 
  • ECSS (Bob S/Phil/Sergiu) -
    • Will try to have L3 managers meet with staff 1-1 more in the new year.
    • Effort to integrate allocations database with Jira. Will involve Nathan Tolbert & team, Lonnie, Glen. Hope to have this live in first quarter of 2021
  • XCI (Dave L/Rich) -  

    • Excited to bring on the new deputy. 
  • Ops (Greg/Victor) -   
    • Follow-up after quarterly meeting (tickets, transition plan, interconnections, etc.)
    • Discussion with Globus re. licensing changes.
      • We have standard subscription. They have other levels of subscription that have additional features, but XSEDE has standard level.   
  • RAS (Dave H/Ken/Nathan) -  

    • Alex rolled out account creation form
    • Previous org form allowed users to enter any arbitrary text and create new organization, which created a mess. New form makes it more difficult to create a new organization, creates a ticket so this is handled ongoing instead of a pile up that needs cleaned up at the end of each quarter. 
  • Program Office (Ron/Leslie) - 
  • SP Forum (Ruth) -  

    • Final meeting of 2020 is today. Jim Wilgenbusch will present update on MN supercomputing center. He was unaware that MSI was an L3 member. Looking to reengage with SPF.  
    • Will have elections at first meeting in January. 
    • Ruth to update re. what Stanford is doing.
    • Routine participation from ROI team will begin in January so they can learn more about SPF. 
  • UAC (Emre) -   
    • UAC meeting earlier this week. Next meeting will be in February (Dave Hart will present). If anyone wants feedback from UAC, let Emre know so you can be added to future meeting. 
  • NSF (Bob C) - 


Next Meeting:     SMT - January 14, 2021


  • No labels