Participation with Resource Provider Forum

 Participants

• Lead: @Tim Boerner

• All meeting participants (no B session)

 Topics

Background

• In the XSEDE context, the SP Forum is a valuable organization for Service Providers to share information with each other and to provide feedback and advice to the XSEDE project on a variety of topics.

• The SP Forum, while chartered/tasked by XSEDE, self-organizes and operates independently of XSEDE (and unfunded).

• Members of the SP Forum have agreed that it is worthwhile and are willing to continue to participate in the SP Forum or its successor organization under the ACCESS context.

• There are some XSEDE staff that are funded to participate/engage with the SPs via the SPF (e.g., SP Coordinator). Also, XSEDE deputy project director attends to represent the project.

• Meetings are currently scheduled bi-weekly for 1 hour.

• The Chair of the SP Forum is on the XSEDE Senior Management Team.

• T3/CONECT, anticipating a large degree of contact with RPs due to technical integration requirements between RPs and ACCESS, T3/CONECT defined a funded role for RP Coordinator (Tim Boerner) to facilitate between T3 and the RPs on their integration with ACCESS, and to engage with new RPs/RP types to collect needs and promote participation in ACCESS.

Discussion

• What is an RP?

  • A Service Provider (RP) as defined in XSEDE today, is a Resource Provider (RP) in ACCESS. They are synonymous.

• Are there any concerns with having a formal relationship between ACCESS and the RP Forum similar to XSEDE? If so, how should it change?

  • On XSEDE SPF Chair sits on the Senior Management Team as a voting member.

• What kind of participation do the ACO and other tracks want to have with the RP Forum?

• How should we coordinate our interactions with the RP Forum?

  • e.g., perhaps it is sufficient that we each send a representative to the RP Forum to participate in those conversations.

• Is there anything that we need from the RP Forum that it doesn't provide to XSEDE as the SP Forum?

• How should ACCESS approach the SP Forum and request that they continue as the community transitions from XSEDE to ACCESS?

• Should the RP Forum have representation in governing/advisory bodies for ACCESS as in XSEDE? (e.g., in some capacity with the EC)

  • More discussion needed

• What challenges do we expect as we expand the number and type of RPs with ACCESS?

• We should provide guidance to the RP Forum as to who/what are the “resources” that they should include to help the ACCESS program.

• The value of the RP Forum to ACCESS is in 1) advisory role, 2) working/collaboration role.

• Suggestion is to ask the SPF to continue as the RPF using the current SPF forum, until a new charter can be defined and approved.

• NSF wants to enable the RPs to provided resources and services defined in each provider award.

• What does interaction/communications that we need now look like?

• Mechanism to communicate with them about how we’ll interact with them. 2-way conversation. How do they want to interact?

  • John will talk to SPF as ACO lead.

    • Soliciting info from them empowers them and allows them to feel part of process.

    • Ask for patience while we figure out

• Clarification that Tim’s role is more about integration of RPs vs. governance level things.

• Are there limiting factors that the RPs have?

  • Having representation on SMT & XAB gave a communications path to work out issues and allow them to have a voice in decision making & advising.

• Expectation of NSF re. RPs working with ACCESS?

  • Up to us to define how much we can commit to supporting. Can’t do everything for everybody.

• Some RP Forum are volunteers, some required. Are we supposed to accept everyone that comes to us?

  • Trying to make it easier with roadmaps so less burdensome to us.

 Action items (Owner)

 Decisions