1 / 11

Group A (session 2)

Group A (session 2). Q1. 1. How would we develop a (minimal) high level blueprint/framework/conceptual architecture or set of processes (or is there a better word?) to organize and coordinate the development and support of cyberinfrastructure , e.g. could expect that this would include

jess
Download Presentation

Group A (session 2)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Group A (session 2)

  2. Q1 1. How would we develop a (minimal) high level blueprint/framework/conceptual architecture or set of processes (or is there a better word?) to organize and coordinate the development and support of cyberinfrastructure, e.g. could expect thatthiswouldinclude - minimal securityassurances, identitymanagement - datasharingpolicies - collaborativesoftwaredevelopment - campus bridging to international infrastructures - governancemechanisms

  3. Q1 Discussion Notes (1) • Adoption and not re-inventing the wheel! • What good practices / processes have not yet been adopted by this community, but should be? • Not develop, but adopt! • Tried ITIL, does not really work for an evolving / dynamic environment, not easy to adopt • There are things which can be learnt from it though • Key players and stakeholders • What key players in setting that process up are required? • OSG, PRACE, EGI, XSEDE, ... (usualsuspects, but only e-Infrastructure/compute) • Whataboutusercommunitiesordataprojects? • How to identify others? Hierarchical approach for the process (too many)? • Potentially (too) many folks…to get consensus.

  4. Q1 Discussion Notes (2) • Influence on governance and mission and the well-known legacy challenge • Communities have their own governance/mission, which will not change. • Communities will participate if there is an obvious benefit (and not before) • E.g. Does XSEDE know about community requirements, e.g. NCAR. yes, is documented. • Also have to deal with legacy... • Collaboration, risks and terms • Different funding sources seem to impose different requirements • different funding streams don't need to be competetive -> federation ofresources... • Risks for communities, e.gif NCAR participates in XSEDE, is it subsumed? • no, will maintain its identity – It needs to be well communities  mutual benefits • Clear termsrequired: Research Infrastructure versus e-Infrastructure, tomake explicit which infrastructure is supposed to *serve* and those that are communities • Very different for HEP, because it is only one community specific CI, where value of overall project is more valuable than idendity

  5. Q1 Discussion Notes (3) • Roadmapswithconcretetimelineandfollow-ups • On federations, policies etc. cancollide…in different projects • International / global roadmap for other (non-HEP) communities may help • That has to be (also) done independent of funding agencies (possibly some funding for doing so) • Culture of coming together is not bound to funding agencies, nor to funding, really • Example: humanities do not participate (lessfunding still) • Go beyond chasing funds, reconsider the fundamental requirements • Example: what are the key aspects of a federated identity system which we want? • *Then* discuss solutions...

  6. Q1 Discussion Notes (4) • ‘Parked’ Funding for process to understand needs • Why do we do solutions before understanding the problem? • ECis not funding process, but proposed solutions with clear objectives (and KPIs). At time of proposal, it is expected to propose (targeted) solutions. ‘Parking money’ is usually not really appreciated • EarthCube, conceptualproposal • Open process though means x00 participants, which can get unwieldy • multiple funding sources further complicate that process... • This will converge if the value proposition is clear, and one can demonstratereturnofinvestment • What do you want to do -> what do you want to accomplish • Communicating vallue proposition can be difficult, takes time, needs patience • A wholepreparatory project orseriesofworkshopsmightbeinteresting

  7. Q2  implied in Q1, time restriction 2. How would these processes aid in activities such as - sustainability - international cooperation - anyothers?

  8. Q3 3. How to to turn this "blue print" into a set of actionable processes?

  9. Q3 Discussion Notes (1) Approaches • 0: Within each community, community building beyond individual groups / institutions (similar to HEP, NCAR, others ) – ESFRI-like in EU • 1: need to agree that blueprint is needed. • 2: who owns process of creating the blueprint? • 3: how do we get the process of realizing the blueprint?

  10. Q3 Discussion Notes (2) Is a blueprintneeded? • Blueprint for what? -> for global CI • Global may not be acceptable for communities, but rather federated, etc. • Sensitivity to language and terms, so define 'blueprint' etc before going to community • Establishglossaryofterms, communicateopenly • Small group, define process • Funding Agencies are stake holders, but they should not own the process (but helphereandtheretosupportthoseacivitieswouldbegood) • E.g. "A Blueprint for CyberInfrastructure for Global Science„ • That would, to some extent, be similar to defining the scope of EGI • Want members of community, not those who get at the end funded for doingit • separation of vision/design needs to be separated from realization/implementation • --> 1: yes, agreementthatthisisneeded

  11. Q3 Discussion Notes (3) Who owns the process? • Small group, with input from others. • Somebody has to care enough about the bigpicture... • Blessing from Funding Agencies can help • How to fund this, e.g. PIRE??: Partnership for International Relationships • Orocess may work different in Japan, but may be adaptable • Needs vs. Desires must beunderstoodandderivedrequirementsare different too • Heterogeneity vs. simplicity? • Identifying needs takes time, lots of work • HUGE amount of work which is proposed here - Is itworthwhile? • Yes! • Then is matter of prioritization, human engineering • Requires significant time / commitment from key players (only those have the knowhow to get this achieved while at the same time being overcommitted) • You do not just hire new folks doing this

More Related