Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • AllocRevision_draft_ImplementationPlan.pdf
  • (2/16) 
    • Recommendation 1 - no objections
    • Recommendation 2 - no objections
      • John - for very large requests recommend they apply for BlueWaters time
    • Recommendation 3 - no objections
      • John - set a dynamic threshold
    • Recommendation 8 - no objections
      • John - getting the guidelines down
    • Recommendation 10 (a) - no objections
    • Recommendation 10 (b) - no objections
    • Recommendation 12 - no objections
    • Recommendation 13 - no objections
    • Recommendation 14 - no objections
    • Recommendation 9 - no objections
      • John - PIs not accustomed to submitting those reports, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out; prevent onerous process
      • Sergiu - more robust renewal progress report with a scope larger than 1 year
      • John - could catch publications
    • Recommendation 11 - no objections
    • Recommendation 7 - no objections
      • John - does it make sense to create another allocation class where startups are truly startups? 
      • Dave - threshold for alternate opportunity
      • Nancy - would be good for others to know these "known" renewal details; what about educational options
    • Recommendation 6 - would like thresholds ACTION
      • John - are there cases where we wouldn't necessarily want to limit them and what would those be? For example, work from Industry that is substantial 
    • Recommendation 5 - no objections
    • Recommendation 4 - no objections
    • Recommendation 15 - no objections
    • Recommendation 16 - no objections
      • John - guidance on how to define a service unit

Decisions:

  • All recommendations reviewed.  Topic will be removed from SMT agenda.

Actions:

  • Revise Recommendation 6

...

  • (1/12) Email from Craig: Migrating XSEDE functions that are hosted on Quarry. For this we need a PCR, but we also need a lot more people involved and at some point we need a decision from you. I am happy to offer resources on Jetstream out of my PI discretionary allocation to provide the resources needed to host the XSEDE operational infrastructure. The work of coordinating moves will take some effort from a lot of people, but it’s just work to do and we can all get it done. The key question is really for you and SMT: do you want to have the primary hosting of the XSEDE operational infrastructure on AWS, with Jetstream as a backup, or would you prefer to have the primary hosting don on Jetstream, with AWS as a backup. We’ll go ahead and start a PCR, but this project is complicated and will take more time and effort overall than moving users. I would propose that we have at least a decision from XSEDE leadership and aim to have a PCR approved by the end of XSEDE2 PY1.
  • (2/2) Craig - rather than replace Quarry, put them into the cloud
  • (2/2) John - would like to be able to move these around
  • (2/2) Dave L - services stay up 
  • (2/2) Craig - long-term discussion; ok with short-term decisions

Discussion:

  • noteTopic will be tabled until further offline discussions about long-term planning.

Decisions:


Actions:

 

Status updates:

...