Versions Compared

Key

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

Attendees:

Canonical Meeting Template (as a reminder):

...

  • (3/25) Added to agenda
  • If we go a long time without knowing who the successor is, there will come a point that we'll have to start ramping down. Trying to understand if there is a date that we will start shutting things down & won't be able to start back up without reasonable amount of effort or that there wouldn't be enough funded time to bring back. At which point transition becomes unavailable.
  • Survey of all services–some don't have mapping to the new plan. 3 month timeframe has been discussed to notify users that there isn't a direct mapping. 
  • What to do about XDCDB as it holds everything together. Down time for XDCDB will be significant. 
  • Issue shut down command to all servers on 8/31/22 with hope that they can be brought back up. 
  • Need to communicate across the project for PY11 planning and to successor awards so they know what the drop dead date is. 
  • Could be awkward in allocations. Allocations could be made and then nothing to give them. Mitigation plan for this.
  • When to stop offering ECSS: ECSS has discussed this and is working on language re. how they'll explain this. Possibly March 2022. 
  • Potential staff volatility towards end of award. 
  • Should be discussed in the PY11 plan. This is a good topic to get input from XAB on. 

Discussion: 

  • Each L2 try to figure out latest date you would need to spin things down, process for spinning down, date of no return (latest date you wouldn't be able to start back up).
  • Do this exercise with your L2 managers. 
  • Plenty of work to do between now and end of project so shouldn't be characterized as negative. 
  • How challenging is this for the L2s? How much time is needed? 
    • ECSS: have been discussing this. Will be reflected in questions posing to XAB. Shouldn't be challenging to draft a timeline that indicates that final XRAC that ECSS will take allocations. Should be able to have this by next SMT meeting. 
    • XCI: Will need to align with RAS re. allocations, esp re. onboarding new SPs. 
    • Ops: need to think about each of the services, how complicated to spin back up. Should be able to provide update at next SMT
    • RAS: Question posed to Bob Chadduck re. XRAC at end of project to confirm that they want to proceed with that meeting since any allocations made would need to be transitioned to new award. A lot of risk involved in that meeting since we don't know who will take it over. Not sure how smooth the handover would be given lack of staff funding for RAS after 8/31. Waiting on answer to this. RAS is committed to helping to make it work one way or other, but that could be non-trivial. 

Decisions: 

  • All L2s should have something sent to the leadership@xsede.org email list by Wednesday, April 21. 

4. Approval of revised allocation policies (David Hart  ) 

...

Discussion: 

  • Bob S. added comment to the doc re. suggestion that Dave adds a sentence to the  “Eligibility of allocation requesters” section so that folks who meet special eligibility requirements are encouraged to go to the appendix. Otherwise he approves.

Decisions:

  • New policy is approved. 


5. Approval of Stony Brook as L2 SP and Bridges2 as L1 SP (Ron Payne   ) 

...

  • (4/8) Added to agenda
  • Letters sent by email.

Discussion: 

  • Suggestion from Bob S: Vote to approve. The only minor change I might suggest is that PSC state explicitly that 90% of the capacity of each resource type (CPU, GPU, Extreme memory) comprising Bridges2 will be allocated through XSEDE.

Decisions:

  • Subject to edit of letter per Bob's suggestion, both SPs are approved. 
  • Sergiu to send updated letter from PSC to reflect the above change.
  • Ron will send acceptance letters.

6. Fluid Numerics (Tabitha Samuel

Previously:

  • (4/8) Added to agenda
  • Initial discussion indicated concerns about them being a commercial entity. See notes from that discussion at SMT Meeting - February 11, 2021
  • Letter from Fluid Numerics was sent by email on Feb. 5 (Leslie reforwarded to email list today). 

Discussion: 

  • Concern about them using as a marketing tool for their services. Need to understand their expectations re. what they would contribute & receive. 
  • Might be interesting to entertain what it would look like to allocate commercial cloud services. Could be partner in exploring that space (understanding there are many risks). 
  • Not clear if what they're offering is at cost or not. They need to understand that our SPs offer their services at no cost.
  • Does this involve any pilot work for XSEDE? We're in process of ramping down, so do we want to spin up a pilot? They didn't propose a pilot.
  • What is an analog to Fluid Numerics? HDF? not formally associated with a university. Feels like a similar type of org. 
  • Affiliate member of COVID consortium, and they've offered their service for free to that. Not sure if they will offer to XSEDE for free as well. 
  • As an L3 they wouldn't need to provide anything. Just need to fill out what they have available. Rules don't say that it has to be only things that are free. Lets the community know it's available. 
  • Should we have special rules for commercial entities? Is there a reason we shouldn't allow a commercial entity to participate? 
    • Don't want them to leverage their SPF position to grow their business/scrape contact info
    • Haven't put constraints on this in our SPF policies re. limitations
    • NSF allowing grants to write these kinds of services into their budgets & expect national allocations process to be able to allocate these kinds of things. Don't see why XSEDE can't start moving towards this. 
    • As long as they understand this is a technical interaction–not a marketing tool for them. As long as they agree to this, we should explore it.

Decisions:

  • Need clarification from Fluid Numerics re. uncertainties. Ron Payneto send request for clarification. 
    • What would they offer to community for no cost? Under what terms/costs would they offer things to the community? 
      • They should describe themselves as a fee-for-service entity if there is some cost associated so people understand. No need to outline price structure.   
    • Be clear we expect them not to use this as a marketing tool. No explicit marketing opportunities here. This is a technical engagement–not marketing opportunity.
    • What value they bring to the community and what they expect to get out of the participation?
  • Decision will be made pending receipt of this clarification. 

Around the call up

Follow this basic outline:

...

Updates from SMT members:

  • PI (John/Ron) - 
    • NSF is aware at some point we will stop taking requests for ECSS support and that ECSS & CEE will be spinning down. Are there other things we should ask NSF for guidance on? Send John a note on anything you think he should take to NSF. 
    • PY11 plan looks pretty good but don't see anything related to "in light of recently approved blueprint doc, making the following adjustments." If people have made adjustments, those haven't been called out. Are we changing anything based on the blueprints? 
      • ECSS: Yes: continue to focus on connecting with orgs that align with ECSS given that it won't continue. 
      • Ops: called out that they're looking for how they'll be collaborating with future awards. 
      • People should consider this more.
  • Tim
    • No update

  • CEE (Kelly) - 
    •  No update 
  • ECSS (Bob S/Phil/Sergiu) -
    •    Working on XAB questions 
  • XCI (Dave L/Tabitha/RichShava) -  

    • Good discussion on the XAB questions
  • Ops (Greg/Victor) -   
    • Impact of turning off services etc being discussed by the team.   
  • RAS (Dave H/Ken/Nathan) -  

    •   Dealing with new SPs.   
  • Program Office (Ron/Leslie) - 
    • Reminder: Enter Publications in XUP and documents in IDEALS
    • Reminder: Reference collaborations in tracking worksheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19YRAPeAForh5I9Xvhj8nKjROe3-JN7a1caLYbNamPaw
    • Reminder: Address recommendations (Jira)    
    • Meetings set up or completed with several subaward partners re. their PY10-11 spend plans. By the next meeting we should have most of these completed. Expect to release updated spend plan in May so leadership can review. Should allow us to start planning how any unspent funds will be utilized. 
  • SP Forum (Ruth) -  

    • No update
  • UAC (Emre) -   
    • Plan to have a meeting shortly after the annual review (July) 
  • NSF (Bob C) - 


Next Meeting:     SMT - April 22, 2021 

...