Meeting Minutes (9 July 2002 from 2:15 PM EDT) In attendance: Lazzarini Blackburn Nash Brady Wiseman Katsavounidis Anderson Finn Discussion on template for resource requests focused on clarifying the distinction between granting accounts and authorizing access to resources. Different forms are required for different purposes: in particular, resource management and account provisioning are different functions. Accounts can be created without allocating resources for use by the account holder. Action: Kent will distribute url of a mock-up of his form for manipulating account info. Sam, Tom and Erik will examine all these forms (Kent's and Patrick's) and synthesize a single set of forms and database table that will capture what we need for account generation and resource allocation. An issue that was highlighted, but not fully discussed, was the distinction between LSC and non-LSC resources: e.g., UWM has resources that are not LSC wide, but are available by application to UWM directly. Should these be on the same form as the LSC resources? Not only LDAS resources need to be managed: also DMT and other unix system resources used for data analysis activities. Analysis activities take place on more than the LDAS platform and require more than LDAS. These activities require substantial resources, which must be managed if the analysis activities are to succeed. Action: Tom will draft a memo from the Committee to Barry, Gary and Rai, identifying the broader resource allocation question and proposing how we can proceed to bring these other resources into the fold. Every other week Committee meetings of 1h are not sufficient to cover the issues before the Committee. Committee will hold a special meeting at 2:00 PM EDT on Wednesday, 10 July; subsequent every other Tuesday meetings will be extended to 90m. Meeting adjourned at 2:58 PM. Follow-on Meeting Minutes (10 July 2002 from 2:00 PM EDT) In attendance: Lazzarini Blackburn Anderson Finn Nash Brady Wiseman Koranda PSU Tier 2 Center Progress Report: see circulated notes. The principal question discussed was do we really want to invest our human and financial resources in another clone of a Lab LDAS installation, or do we want to use this center to move in a different direction? As an example meant to illustrate a very different direction, consider building a "dmt nursery". This would entail significantly different hardware choices (e.g., lots of Sun blade systems). (This was meant simply as an illustrative example: there are issues that force this hardware choice which should really be addressed in other ways.) Another direction would be a "sun-free" clone: i.e., put fte support into solving server issues that are, in the current lab-based configuration solved by Sun. Pursuing alternative directions, like these, involve questions of cost-effectiveness, overall mission, and institutional priorities and interests. In this latter category and important considerations is that, while we can provide boundary conditions, guidance and encouragement, we not force an institution, which has signed-on under one set of assumptions, to go in directions they don't support. No actions. NSF trip report. Finn/Goldberg discussion 14 June 2002: see circulated notes. How did we (as a community) get where we are today? LIGO Lab was moved by NSF to form the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and to build a national facility, which is different in important ways from what was proposed and funded in 1992. This is scope increase, encouraged but not fully funded by the NSF. (PIs are funded, but the community facility infrastructure in computing, which is implied by the existence of the community, is not.) This gets us to today, where our computing infrastructure is being funded in a manner that does not recognize the coherent community need. In an important sense our proposal is addressed to the Physics Division, and not to a particular program, since we are highlighting a need created by the formation of this community but that is not addressed by any existing programs. Action: We will write a proposal that describes our needs and what is required to meet them. Lazzarini will produce and circulate a proposal outline. Lazzarini will investigate and report back on how and where such a proposal should be addressed. iVDGL MoU. We need to produce a MoU with iVDGL soon. Barish and Sanders strongly favor a single MoU as opposed to multiple MoUs with multiple tier-N host institutions. Finn and Nash also favor this avenue. This will likely mean that the Lab assume fiduciary responsibility and, consequently, the ability to excerise fiduciary authority. Action: The current draft of the CMS MoU with iVDGL is on the CompComm web site at . All are to review the MoU and exchange mail regarding what breaks and what needs to be done differently in the context of LIGO. This should happen before next meeting. Nash notes: Nash circulated some notes to help us define the terms of our resource management discussions. Thesse need to be coupled to a conclusion and recommendations and then forwarded to Barish and Sanders for review and action. Action: All should review on comment on notes. Lazzarini will prepare memo based on notes, with conclusion and recommended actions, which will be circulated to committee for review and discussion before being forwarded to Barish and Sanders. Next meeting scheduled 24 July 2002 at 2:00 PM EDT for 90 minutes.