Open Stack

Thanks Jon,  Stig,  Always good to have a blessing to get these things
kicked off.

I'll see if I can add a [scientific-wg] tag to the [user-committee] mailing
list.  Until, the mailing list traffic exceeds a weekly trickle, I believe
it should stay here on the user-comitte mailing list for
oversight/guidance.   Any objections?

Next step will be the innagural scientific-wg meeting in Austin which Stig
is submitting on behalf of several authors.

It would be good to get a little brainstorming done on list prior to
meeting face to face.   Specifically, I think the meeting in Austin should
be used to list specific tasks which the WG can progress with Barcelona as
the deadline?

For example, the following sub-wg tasks could be taken on by 1-3 ppl:

i.) HPC-Openstack operators to liaise with foundation on an HPC Openstack
whitepaper.

ii.) Published List of University clouds being made available for
student/staff use cross institution,  i.e. Australia,  Taiwan and the USA
all have public clouds available to those with .edu email addresses.

iii.) Published list of scientific applications which have images built for
OpenStack,  i.e. iPython, RStudio, CAD, Tilemill, etc

iv.) Published list of scientific datasets accessible via openstack APIs, a
la AWS public datasets.

v.) Your turn to insert idea here...

Etc.

I'm a big fan of having small quick wins in the first six months of the WG?
Eventually to evolve into oversight of key agendas.

@ALL request for potential WG tasks:  I'm glad to curate the ideas posted
into the etherpad for use as the starter agenda during the Austin meeting.

Yes you want to push reply and post an idea!  <-- attempting new Jedi email
mind trick ;)

Best,  Flanders


On 29 Jan 2016 2:34 am, "Jonathan Proulx" <jon at csail.mit.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:26:25AM +0000, Stig Telfer wrote:
> :Hello -
> :
> :Can I request the formalisation of the Scientific Working Group?  Our
> initial thoughts have been collaboratively shaped on an etherpad[1], and
> Flanders has very helpfully distilled the essence of them into a wiki
> page[2], which is now linked to the table of working groups on the User
> Committee pages.
>
> I think you've ticked all the boxes, not sure there's any more
> 'formalization' to be done. Looking at
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Procedure_for_Creating_a_New_Working_Group
>
> perhaps this is step 4: "Keep doing good work, and look for the
> response from a User Committee member" ?
>
> In which case you certainly have my blessing.
>
> You'll note those steps don't include any formal approval.  There're
> just designed to make sure groupos are visible to each other and the
> community at large so that people looking can find them and
> participate and to make sure multiple groups aren't created for the
> same purpose and you've done an exemplary job of meeting those goals.
>
> -Jon
>
> :Many thanks,
> :Stig Telfer
> :
> :[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/scientific-wg
> :[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Scientific_working_group
> :_______________________________________________
> :User-committee mailing list
> :User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> :http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> User-committee mailing list
> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20160129/ce5981bc/attachment.html>