[Twg] [Discuss] TWG development requirements voting

[Nathan Rutman]

Sorry John, apparently this never made it out my mailbox :(


Begin forwarded message:


	From: Nathan Rutman <Nathan_Rutman at xyratex.com>
	
	Subject: OpenSFS 2012 Priorities
	
	Date: May 3, 2012 1:22:50 PM PDT
	
	To: twg at lists.opensfs.org
	
	Cc: Nathan Rutman <Nathan_Rutman at xyratex.com>
	

	Xyratex list:

	1.	Scalable fault management - faster detection and reporting of problems, vital for monitoring and our quality story
	2.	Avoid RPC timeouts - similar to above, better user feel.
	3.	Improved Lustre tests - quality
	4.	QOS - better interactive user feel
	5.	HSM
	6.	OST migration / space rebalancing
	7.	Asynchronous file replication
	8.	IPv6 support
	9.	directory traversal / attribute retreival - better interactive user feel
	10.	LNET channel bonding




On May 17, 2012, at 4:54 AM, John Carrier wrote:


	
	We still need your help identifying the top requirements, which the TWG will propose that OpenSFS fund for 2013.  Our goal is to issue an RFP and complete contract negotiations by SC12.  All organizations in the Lustre community are welcome to submit a list.
	 
	I’ve received priority lists from the following organizations: Fermi, IU, CEA, Bull, Whamcloud, Terascala, and LLNL.
	Please let me know ASAP if you submitted a list and are not mentioned above.  
	 
	Dave and I had hoped that we would wrap up voting before this week’s TWG call.   But at this point, I don’t have lists from 4 of the 5 OpenSFS promoters (Cray, DDN, ORNL, Xyratex).   Therefore, I propose that we wrap up the voting this week so that I can publish the tally next week for discussion at our 5/24 meeting.  Here’s the “new” schedule:
	
	
	Fri 5/18 – final deadline to submit top 10 requirments in priority order
	Mon 5/21 – TWG to publish summary of votes
	Thur 5/24 – TWG meeting to resolve summary and make recommendation to board
	 
	Voting is really just a matter of submitting to discuss at lists.opensfs.org a prioritized list of top10 features from our gathered requirements http://goo.gl/cZSWG.    Although we will include all lists in our analysis, voting priority will be given to OpenSFS members to resolve ties.  The OpenSFS board has ultimate authority for recommending which features should be funded for development.
	 
	Please let us know if you have any questions.
	 
	John & Dave
	 
	_______________________________________________
	discuss mailing list
	discuss at lists.opensfs.org
	http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-opensfs.org
	


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensfs.org/pipermail/twg_lists.opensfs.org/attachments/20120517/dbc04949/attachment.html>