USAG meeting 30th April 2009

Attendance
----------
GGUS - Torsten Antoni, Helmut Dres, Guenter Grein
CERN - Diana Bosio, Maria Dimou (chairperson)
UK/I - John Kewley
FR   - David Bouvet
IT   - Tiziana Ferrari, Riccardo Brunetti
CE   - Jan Kmunicek
SE   - Ioannis Liabotis, Alex Stanciu
NE   - Vera Hasper
CMS  - Martti Pimia
LHCb - Joel Closier
SA3  - Maria Alandes


Apologies by
------------
Jeff Templon, Ron Trompert, John Gordon


Notes by Diana

Agenda:
-------

1. Agenda approval
2. Comments on the minutes from the 2nd April 2009 USAG meeting
3. Continuous user support assessment as required by MSA-1.6 via the weekly escalation reports . This time: emphasis on ROC reports.
4. New Software Process; Impact on Support.
   
   Taking into account:
   1. Paper on new software process.
   2. Moving towards EGI- EGEE Year 2 paper .
   3. EGEE's plans for transition - slides (check number 3).
   4. Staged roll-out of released middleware.
   5. wLCG Roadmap from the Prague workshop last March (especially slides 14-16 and 21).
5. The new TPM OLA replacing EDMS doc. 888089 is now linked here .
   This is the 2nd of a series of USAG meetings where we are called to shape the User Support strategy in the last year of EGEE and in view of EGI. Here is the EGI Blueprint v.3 (Dec 2008) for quick reference during these meetings. It is important for us to think carefully how the decentralisation of testing and certification will impact the quality of User Support for software-related tickets.
6. Review Action List [go to the end of these notes. There are only 4 open action item.].
7. A.O.B.
   VO Admins of the LHC Experiment VOs go to https://lcg-voms.cern.ch:8443/vo/YourVOname/vomrs, create Groups "TEAM" and "ALARM" and add the DNs of your authorised teamers and alarmers. If you can't remember who is who please contact Guenter.Grein@iwr.fzk.de for the Teamers' list and read the Alarmers' list in the Alarms' twiki.. Relevant savannah ticket #104835.
8. Next meeting date: Thu 28 May 2009 @ 9:30 CET ! (Algorithm: Last Thursday of the month)

Discussion:

1. Agenda: Approved.
2. Comments on the minutes from the 2nd April 2009 USAG meeting :
   • Comments were sent by Tiziana by mail and have been accepted
   • For what concerns the other comments (there was a long thread on the usag mailing list on the new TPM model) we will make the new TPM model a theme for next USAG to see if we reach a consensus around the new model.
   • Conclusion: ACTION: Maria will attach the relevant documents and e-mails to the agenda of the next meeting.
3. Continuous GGUS assessment via the escalation reports:
   analysis from the relevant escalation reports: nothing to report.
   • Conclusion: We should invite SA3 and JRA1 representatives when the focus is on middleware units.
4. New Software Process; Impact on Support.
   
   • One thing to clarify is if the ``Product Teams'' will have effort to provide support via GGUS. There is effort explicitly mentioned in the EGI Blueprint document, in the form of ``support and maintenance'' but it is not clear if this effort mentioned is for answering bugs in savannah or via mailing list or to answer GGUS tickets. ACTION: Tiziana will send the section where support is described in the EGI Blueprint so that we can see if manpower will be available to answer GGUS tickets.
   • There is also the question of the other non-gLite middleware. We do not even know their support model. We need to work with the EGI.eu Middleware Unit, and have a central point of contact. GGUS can provide the infrastructure, but GGUS cannot define the interface with all the Product Teams of the middleware provided by the UMD.
   • We need a mediator body between GGUS and all the middleware units in case of problems, in the same way that OCC is the mediator between GGUS and the ROCs. the OCC was always needed, even if at times it was not as effective as it could have been.
   • We also need to have recommendations concerning the fact that we will have multiple stacks of middleware. One possible solution would be to split the community and give the tickets to the NGI where the Product Team lives. But we should not introduce solutions that would fragment the GGUS structure too much. And this would also leave to GGUS the trouble of mapping all the Product Teams to the NGIs. This mapping is not publicly available anywhere currently.
   • CMS has no current plans to change their support model.
   • There is also the question of the future of products like YAIM for instance. Tiziana informed us that there is a working group that is gathering requirements and task forces that is addressing the question concerning the future of YAIM. But nothing so far has been reflected in the documents.
   • Conclusion: several actions, listed hereafter.
     1. ACTION: Diana will give a presentation at the JRA1-SA3 All Hands Meeting in Cyprus to convey the concerns to the Middleware.
     2. ACTION: Maria will give a summary on the outcome of the All Hands Meeting on what concerns the future of middleware support.
     3. ACTION: Jan will convey to Ales (one of the authors of document 1. in the agenda) our concerns on middleware support.
5. The new TPM OLA replacing EDMS doc. 888089 is now linked here.
   
   • Editorial comments from John Shade accepted.
   • One comment on the use of local ticketing systems versus GGUS usage, does not really apply as GGUS provides the infrastructure but not the support.
   • Conclusion: We will rediscuss it at the next USAG. Maria will upload it to EDMS, bring it to SA1 management.
6. ACTION LIST:
   Only 4 actions were pending in the minutes of the previous meeting.

   
   
   20090402-1
   Review the 18 points of 'RESPONSIBILITIES' in section 4 of the current version 0.6 of the TPM OLA.
   All.
   Pending

   
   20090402-2
   Evaluate how heavy it is for GGUS to register all ticket submitters and to check each ticket submitter's DN in the database before passing it to the 1st level (TPM at the relevant NGI).
   GGUS developers.
   Private e-mail to Maria. It is doable but requires effort.
   Web tickets is ok.
   E-mail tickets might be really problematic as it could slow down the submission of new tickets considerably.
   This action was theoretical.
   Closed.

   
   20090402-3
   Check what will happen with tickets submitted users with a @cern.ch email or with a CERN DN. If CERN is an "Associate" EGI member does it have funding and voting rights? Should it provide TPM effort?
   Maria.
   Done
   It is still not decided if CERN has voting rights, but will not join if it has not.
   It will be decided by the EGI council. There will be discussed in Athens next week.

   
   20090402-4
   Make "Impact on GGUS workflow and reputation" the theme of the next USAG. Also ROC evaluation the subject of 'Continuous GGUS assessment' agenda item.
   Maria
   Done

   
   20090430-1
   Attach the relevant documents and e-mails concerning the new TPM model to the agenda of the next meeting.
   Maria
   Pending

   
   20090430-2
   Send the section where support is described in the EGI Blueprint
   so that we can see if manpower will be available to answer GGUS tickets.
   Tiziana
   Pending

   
   20090430-3
   Write a strategy note on what are our concernrs and what we require to have a solid structure for the GGUS user support after the end of EGEEIII.
   Diana and Torsten
   Pending

   
   20090430-4
   Give a presentation at the JRA1-SA3 All Hands Meeting in Cyprus to convey the concerns to the Middleware.
   Diana
   Done

   
   20090430-5
   Give a summary on the outcome of the All Hands Meeting on what concerns the future of middleware support.
   Maria Alandes
   Pending

   
   20090430-6
   Convey to Ales (one of the authors of document 1. in the agenda) our concerns on middleware support.
   Jan
   Pending

   
   20090430-7
   Communicate to GGUS if the TEAM and ALARM team members are
   implemented via a group or a role, and implent the choice in VOMS.
   CMS, ALICE, LHCb, ATLAS representatives
   Pending

   
   20090430-8
   Update the documents on registration of alarms and teams members
   to specify that both a group or a role is accepted, and their
   names.
   Guenter
   Pending

7. A.O.B.
   • VO Admins of the LHC Experiment VOs go to https://lcg-voms.cern.ch:8443/vo/YourVOname/vomrs, create Groups "TEAM" and "ALARM" and add the DNs of your authorised teamers and alarmers.
     • The reason for suggesting groups and not roles was not to confuse sites on the need of privileges access to the site for these roles. Hence the suggestion for groups.
     • LHCb is opposed to groups as this has implications on other services, will rather have role=production as the team.
     • In any case, one has to create something be it role or group for the alarmers.
   • Conclusion: GGUS will use either a role or a group in VOMS as team and alarm members definition, at the choice of the VO. In general the name of the new group and role will be suggested by GGUS to avoid confusion.
8. Next meeting date: Thu 28 May 2009 @ 9:30 CET ! (Algorithm: Last Thursday of the month)