|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +title: "HSF Weekly Meeting #129, 8 March, 2018" |
| 3 | +layout: default |
| 4 | +--- |
| 5 | + |
| 6 | +# {{page.title}} |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +#### *Present/Contributors*: Graeme Stewart, Dario Menasce, Torre Weanus, Charles Leggett, Paolo Calafiura, Pere Mato, Daniel Elvira, Liz Sexton-Kennedy, David Crooks, Eduardo Rodrigues, Maria Girone, Pete Elmer, David Lange, Oli Gutsche, Helge Meinhard, Giulio Eullise, Simone Campana, Mark Neubauer, Martin Ritter |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +HSF/WLCG Workshop |
| 11 | +================= |
| 12 | +- ### General points |
| 13 | + - 196 people registered. |
| 14 | + - Rooms for each of the sessions have now been put into Indico. |
| 15 | + Note that plenary sessions are all in the hotel; during the |
| 16 | + parallel sessions we use the main hotel room plus 2 rooms |
| 17 | + in the conference centre. The two venues are 200m apart. |
| 18 | + - We have coffee available in both locations when necessary. All |
| 19 | + the lunches are at the conference centre. |
| 20 | + - Vidyo Rooms are created (one for each location). Graeme is the |
| 21 | + owner. If everyone knows the moderation PIN is this enough to |
| 22 | + manage these? |
| 23 | +- ### Outcomes |
| 24 | + - First list of general questions that convenors could consider |
| 25 | + when thinking about their sessions. Aimed at identifying what |
| 26 | + projects we can realise after Naples; and for those we cannot, |
| 27 | + how do we enable them? |
| 28 | + - What projects were identified that we can advance from the |
| 29 | + CWP Roadmap as a community? |
| 30 | + - How will these be followed up on? |
| 31 | + - Are the timescales for the project well defined? |
| 32 | + - Is the project sufficiently covered for effort right now? |
| 33 | + Do we need to ask for further involvement (other |
| 34 | + experiments or groups)? |
| 35 | + - Does the project have resource needs that are not yet |
| 36 | + covered? (Infrastructure and funding.) |
| 37 | + - What projects were identified that we can't advance from |
| 38 | + the CWP Roadmap as a community? |
| 39 | + - Are these critical items for the next decade? |
| 40 | + - Can a case for funding these items be developed? |
| 41 | + - Are there links with other (non-HEP) communities... |
| 42 | + - That are established or that would be desirable? |
| 43 | + - How will the projects developed improve our community's use |
| 44 | + of developer effort between experiments? Can we enhance |
| 45 | + that? |
| 46 | + - What's the best way of organising ourselves (meetings, |
| 47 | + workshops, mailing lists) to work effectively in the next |
| 48 | + few years? |
| 49 | + - Post CWP R&D: How does HEP-TrkX connect with ACTS (for example)? |
| 50 | + How do these projects work together? This is an important |
| 51 | + question. |
| 52 | + - R&D that will inform the ATLAS and CMS computing TDRs is a very important milestone. |
| 53 | + - HSF could curate a map of projects, make sure they are well |
| 54 | + known. |
| 55 | + - Good for projects to have information pages. |
| 56 | + - Knowledge Base is still there, but doesn't seem to be well |
| 57 | + maintained or curated at the moment (updated curation is |
| 58 | + crucial!). |
| 59 | + - Motivation is a bit back to front - it's the things you |
| 60 | + don't know which are the ones you care about. |
| 61 | + - Could we take a [Depsy](http://depsy.org/) |
| 62 | + like approach about finding cross-links between |
| 63 | + software projects? |
| 64 | + - CMS have worked on a list of projects they are involved in, |
| 65 | + some EU funded. |
| 66 | + - Have regular project presentations - take inspiration from the |
| 67 | + much loved Concurrency Forum. |
| 68 | + - Want to address what the meaning of an HSF project actually is - |
| 69 | + what value can HSF bring to projects that come under the |
| 70 | + umbrella. |
| 71 | + - Source of advice and expertise. |
| 72 | + - Means of raising awareness. |
| 73 | + - Do we help with funding applications? Yet to be proven, but |
| 74 | + surely does no harm. |
| 75 | + - Discussion on this foreseen in Software Development session. |
| 76 | +- ### Monday |
| 77 | + - Opening Plenary |
| 78 | + - Not much change - Taylor Childers will contribute to the US |
| 79 | + funding situation talk |
| 80 | + - Technology Watch |
| 81 | + - Call for input broadcast to the community. |
| 82 | + - HEP Use Cases |
| 83 | + - Need to go through the list to find speakers. Liz/Daniel |
| 84 | + will help follow up with Erica. |
| 85 | +- ### Tuesday |
| 86 | + - Data Management/Lakes |
| 87 | + - The data management sessions will have a small adjustment |
| 88 | + (One talk of 5', highlights for XDC). Otherwise the agenda |
| 89 | + is confirmed. |
| 90 | + - Frameworks and Infrastructure |
| 91 | + - Iterating on question/themes for session speakers. |
| 92 | + - Training (Parallel) |
| 93 | + - Speakers invited, all have accepted: they were provided a |
| 94 | + template to help them delivering homogenous talks from |
| 95 | + their individual perspective. This will facilitate the |
| 96 | + round table: needs and proposal will be based on an equal |
| 97 | + footing. First outcome should be a proposal on how to |
| 98 | + organize the "Training" activity by joining forces among |
| 99 | + existing (and future) initiatives. |
| 100 | + - DPHEP (Parallel) |
| 101 | + - Good agenda - not clear if all speakers are found. |
| 102 | + - Workload Management (Parallel) |
| 103 | + - For the workload management session all speakers are |
| 104 | + effectively confirmed. |
| 105 | + - Analysis Facilities and Use Cases |
| 106 | + - NTR. |
| 107 | +- ### Wednesday |
| 108 | + - Programming for Concurrency and Co-Processors |
| 109 | + - NTR |
| 110 | + - Visualisation (Parallel) |
| 111 | + - NTR. |
| 112 | + - Performance and Cost Modeling (Parallel) |
| 113 | + - Discussed yesterday, seems well planned. |
| 114 | + - Software Development (Parallel) |
| 115 | + - Asked Sandro about static analysers. Will discuss about the |
| 116 | + profilers soon. |
| 117 | + - Simulation (Parallel) |
| 118 | + - Talks in good dhape. John can't be physically in Naples (need a second person to |
| 119 | + help in-vivo). |
| 120 | + - Security (Parallel) |
| 121 | + - Discussion on OpSec section on Monday this week, slide |
| 122 | + preparation underway. |
| 123 | + - Technical Discussion on Frameworks (Parallel) |
| 124 | + - Some problems organising this session. Now envisage more of |
| 125 | + a follow on discussion based on CWP and continuation of |
| 126 | + the Frameworks and Infrastructure session. |
| 127 | +- ### Thursday |
| 128 | + - Closing Plenary |
| 129 | + - Need to chase up SKA talk. |
| 130 | + |
| 131 | +CWP |
| 132 | +=== |
| 133 | +- ### General Matters and Roadmap |
| 134 | + - CERN Courier article got a few improvements after Ed Board |
| 135 | + feedback. Will appear in April edition. |
| 136 | + - Will circulate the proof to the startup team. |
| 137 | + - Symmetry magazine article status we are not sure about - to be |
| 138 | + followed up. |
| 139 | +- ### Publication strategy for Individual WG Papers |
| 140 | + - ### Simulation |
| 141 | + - Ready to go to arXiv now, with a finalised author list. |
| 142 | + Merged into hsf-documents repo. |
| 143 | + - ### Machine Learning |
| 144 | + - No news. |
| 145 | + - ### Software Trigger and Event Reconstruction |
| 146 | + - Done. Needs merged into hsf-documents repo. |
| 147 | + - ### Data Organisation, Management and Access |
| 148 | + - Current contents considered in very good shape |
| 149 | + - Plan is to convert to LaTeX in the coming days, check the |
| 150 | + consistency with the global roadmap next week and call for |
| 151 | + authors as soon as the content is final |
| 152 | + - ### Data and Software Preservation |
| 153 | + - No news |
| 154 | + - ### Data Analysis and Interpretation |
| 155 | + - Added abstract (was missing) and completed editing pass. |
| 156 | + Will make pull request with the latest changes and then |
| 157 | + get sign-off from authors in preparation for submission. |
| 158 | + - ### Visualization |
| 159 | + - No news |
| 160 | + - ### Event/Data Processing Frameworks |
| 161 | + - A version went to the github document repo. Still needs more |
| 162 | + work. |
| 163 | + - ### Careers, Staffing and Training |
| 164 | + - Want to incorporate thoughts from Naples and revise, given |
| 165 | + the wider community involved there. |
| 166 | + - ### Facilities and Distributed Computing |
| 167 | + - Waiting until after the WLCG strategy document is done. |
| 168 | + - ### Conditions Access |
| 169 | + - No news |
| 170 | + - ### Generators |
| 171 | + - Should discuss this at Naples and see how to move forward. |
| 172 | + |
| 173 | +PyHEP Workshop |
| 174 | +============== |
| 175 | +- N(major)TR |
| 176 | + |
| 177 | +Activity updates |
| 178 | +================ |
| 179 | + |
| 180 | +Licensing |
| 181 | +--------- |
| 182 | +- HepMC3 authors agreed to assign copyright to CERN and apply an LGPL |
| 183 | + license. CERN copyright is recognised as using the lab as a |
| 184 | + favourable copyright holder for the community. Authors |
| 185 | + acknowledgement file makes sure contributors get appropriate |
| 186 | + credit ("git log" tells all, of course!). |
| 187 | + - Could HepMC3 become an HSF project? Would need to improve a few |
| 188 | + technical points, but in principle it's a good candidate. |
| 189 | + (N.B. HSF is not a legal entity, can't hold copyright.) |
| 190 | +- Discussion on copyright - authors should decide who the appropriate |
| 191 | + entity is to hold this (associated labs are good). Aim for simplicity is our |
| 192 | + advice - one copyright holder is best. |
| 193 | + |
| 194 | +Packaging |
| 195 | +--------- |
| 196 | +- Meeting |
| 197 | + [yesterday](https://indico.cern.ch/event/708110/). |
| 198 | + Converged on use cases document and had an interesting discussion |
| 199 | + on Spack's missing/awkward features. |
| 200 | +- Next meeting [21 |
| 201 | + March](https://indico.cern.ch/event/712739/). Look at |
| 202 | + the use of Nix in LHCb. |
| 203 | + |
| 204 | +AOB |
| 205 | +=== |
| 206 | +- Agreed that getting DOIs for technical notes is a good thing to do. |
| 207 | + Just need to give people practical advice on this (Eduardo). |
| 208 | +- US conceptualisation on Research Software Sustainability Institute |
| 209 | + starting. Workshop in Berkeley to kick off next month. See |
| 210 | + [http://urssi.us/](http://urssi.us/). Mark Neubauer will |
| 211 | + attend. |
0 commit comments