3rd Middleware Readiness Working Group meeting

513/R-068 (CERN)



Show room on map
Dial-in numbers: +41227676000 (English-US, Main)
Access codes: 0174259 (Leader)
0172120 (Participant)
Leader site: https://audioconf.cern.ch/call/0174259
Participant site: https://audioconf.cern.ch/call/0172120

Middleware Readiness Working Group twiki HERE.
  1. Minutes of last meeting HERE.
  2. Actions from last meeting (pasted here from the above minutes):
    1. 20140206-01: David, Alessandro, Maria, Maarten to work through the details of the ATLAS plan and generalise it for the other VOs. If new e-groups are needed, create them. DONE. Result HERE. Detailed discussion under agenda point 3.
    2. 20140206-02: Simone to send the WG his note to the WLCG MB on site rewarding for their participation to the Readiness Verification effort. DONE. Draft doc HERE from today's WLCG MB agenda.
  3. Comments on the generic procedure for use by VOs and Volunteer sites to verify Readiness of new releases (was Action 20140206-01, based on the Presentation at the f2f Ops Coord meeting - Document HERE!!
  4. Refining the procedure (points raised by A. Sciaba` - CMS delegate to this WG):
    1. What if the use of HammerCloud is not acceptable by a VO or is not practicle for a given service?
    2. The Product Teams inform "their" testing sites (see column "Tested at site" the relevant table) about a new release of theirs. When this initial testing done, now do the Volunteer sites (subset of "their" testing sites) decide to start the Readiness verification process? How does the WLCG MW Officer get informed?
    3. Some very important services, like ARC CE and CREAM CE, and maybe BDII are missing from the Products' table. When should we add them?
    4. How do we go about products like ARGUS that can't be verified via VO workflows?
    5. What is our policy about UI and WN Readiness verification? If they should be included, then how about clients they contain, like lcg_utils, gfal2, gfal_utils, etc.?
    6. What should the WLCG MW Officer's policy be for products that issue very often stable releases? It is unreasonable for sites to be asked to verify releases for Readiness more often than once every 2 months (per product they are responsible for), no matter how great their prestige and reward for being Volunteer sites.
    7. How about including the VO SAM tests in the MW Readiness verification procedure?
  5. First impressions from ATLAS' Volunteer sites as per THIS TABLE.
  6. Next meeting
  7. A.O.B.

The agenda of this meeting is empty