Minutes of the EGEE Meeting for FP6
September 9th 2002, CERN, IT-Auditorium (B31/3-004)
Present at the meeting
Fabrizio Gagliardi, CERN-IT (chairman)
Jeremy Cook, Parallab, Bergen, Norway
Maurizio Cecchi, Telecom Italia Lab, Italy
Ludek Matyska, MU, CZ
Karl Solchenbach, Pallas, Germany
Alexander Kryukov, SINP, MSU
Mirco Mazzucato, INFN-Padova, Italy
Roberto Petronzio, INFN, Italy
Mateuz Tadel, JSI, Slovenia
Marko Mikuz, J. Stetan Inst., Slovenia
Kors Bos, NIKHEF, NL
Marcel Soberman, CNRS, France
Guy Wormser, CNRS, France
Wojciech Wislicki, ICM, Uni. Warsaw, Poland
Bogdan Lesyng, ICM, Univ. Warsaw, Poland
Piotr Bala, N. Copernicus Uni., Poland
Jarek Nabrzyski, PSNC, Poland
Olivier Martin, CERN
Bruno Caprile, ITC-irst, Italy
Luciano Serafini, ITC-IRST,Italy
Horst Schwichtenberg, FHI-SCAI
Robin Middleton CERC/RAL, UK
Paul Durham, CLRC/DL, UK
Mark Parsons, EPCC, UK
Neil Geddes, PPARC, UK
David Williams, CERN
Michal Turala, INP/Cyfronet, Poland
Wolfgang von Rüden, CERN-IT
Hans Falk Hoffmann CERN-DG
Marcel Kunze, FZK, Germany
Les Robertson, CERN–IT
Francois Grey, CERN-IT (secretary)
Online participants
Sven Lung, GridXpert, Paris, France
Gabriel Neagu, Ro-Grid consortium, Romanid
Marios Dikaiakos, CyGrid, University of Cyprus
Brian Coghlan, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Norbert Meyer, Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center, Poland
David Horn, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dieter Kranzlmueller, Kepler University Linz, Austria
Lennart Johnsson, Sweden
Manuel Delfino, CERN-IT and Spain
Stavroula Poulou, Hyperion Systems Engineering Ltd, Cyprus
SUMMARY OF MAIN ACTIONS
 Editorial Board and Interim Task Force have been appointed.
 Information about other EoIs and format of 3/10 meeting in Brussels
will be gathered and disseminated to partners.
 Editorial Board will prepare position paper and slide show for 3/10
meeting, with input from Interim Task Force.
 Interim Task Force will prepare next EGEE meeting for 21/10 2pm at
CERN.
DETAILED TIMELINE FOR ACTIONS
 Meeting Minutes sent out this week (FG).
 Summary of meeting with other Grid project consortia sent out this
week (MP).
 Feedback about expected format of October Brussels meeting by
Monday next week (MP).
 Interim Task Force member names, emails and phones distributed by
end of this week. (FG)
 1st Interim Task Force telephone meeting: Thursday 19th 4pm
 Editorial Board first draft sent to task force: Friday 20th
 2nd Interim Task Force telephone meeting: Wednesday 25th 10am
 Feedback to Editorial Board: Wednesday 25th
 Intermediate status to Brian Coghlan by 26th
 Editorial Board sends 2nd draft to all EGEE partners: Monday 30th
 Feedback from all stakeholders to Editorial Board by Tuesday 1 st
 3rd Interim Task Force phone meeting Tuesday 1st 10am
 Final version of presentation etc. ready by 2nd
 Presentation by FG at Brussels meeting 3-4 October
 EU rapporteur feedback of meeting around 16th October
 4th Interim Task Force phone meeting to prepare background and
agenda for next EGEE meeting Monday 7th October 2pm.
 Next EGEE partner meeting tentatively scheduled 21st October 2pm at
CERN, pending results of EU meeting and rapporteur feedback.
The Editorial Board is:
Fabrizio Gagliardi, Mark Parsons and Francois Grey.
The Interim Task Force is:
France: Guy Wormser
Italy: Mirco Mazzucato
UK & Ireland: Neil Geddes
Czech Republic: Ludek Matyska
Slovakia: Ladislav Hluchý
Spain: Manuel Delfino
Germany: Marcel Kunze
Nordic/Holland: Kors Bos (waiting for confirmation from Nordic consortia)
Poland: to be confirmed
Russia: Alexander Kryukov (observer)
CERN: Fabrizio Gagliardi (chairman)
MINUTES
1) Feedback from EU
Fabrizio Gagliardi (FG): Brussels people are positioning themselves. Grid is difficult to place
in a single unit. EU IT budget overall is 3.6bn€ throughout many different action calls. New
item in 6th framework is the large Integrated Projects. 300m€ set aside for infrastructure and
Grid infrastructure. Only small proportion of the 15k EoIs are relevant to this.
At the time EoI was made, it seemed like 300m€ were managed by one directorate, now it
seems like it will be both research and INFSO directorates. EGEE EoI was aimed at around
100m€ (compared to total partner contribution of 200m€). However, this may be divided into
different calls (like 5th framework) or at least two rounds of 50m€ each.
The situation is still fluid. EU is supposed to put all info from EoIs on web this week, but this
may be delayed. A consultation meeting is planned for October 3-4 concerning the Gridrelated EoIs. Member states can still influence the process. An important message should be
that Grid development is not behind in Europe and there are already good collaborations with
the US. There is a worrying rumour that Grid technology calls may not be before 2004.
Question: what is the scale of US investments?
FG: Japan is starting a 620m$ project over 4-5 years, therefore the Asia Pacific area is may
be still behind but catching up fast – next general GGF conference will be in Japan early
March 2003. US Grid efforts continue very strong. IT industry is getting involved (IBM, Sun).
NSF funding at level of 9m$ year (NMI accompanying measure). Americans want to follow
what EU does, and there is interest in better coordination, e.g. through Magic meetings.
Hans Hoffmann (HH): US will contribute 10-20m$ earmarked for particle physics Grids, partly
in Europe.
Mirco Mazzucato (MM): Magic is a workgroup defining 10-year plan for US Grid research and
preparing document for the US government. Another US initiative involves 1bn$ for “cyberinfrastructure” and includes Grids (this is at the proposal stage). International aspects of this
would include EU.
FG: expressed concern that many EU projects funding US contributions, but no immediate
obvious quid pro quo.
David Williams (DW): The expected size of integrated projects seems to be decreasing over
time, from EU perspective (going from 100m€ range to 10m€ range). Seems to be a fear of
making projects too big. Grid funding split in DG between IT and Research directorates.
Ambient intelligence is a buzzword, and people writing reports on this have narrow view of
what Grids are. Must get more computer scientists involved.
Question: A rumour is circulating that there are no integrated projects in the first call.
FG: June 2nd is evaluation date for 1st call proposals, so expect a call will go out in December
2002-January 2003.
Mark Parsons (MP): Complex problem solving and research infrastructure are two sources of
funding for Grid. There will probably be only one call for a major research infrastructure
project but not for complex problem solving (this may be origin of rumour). Challenge is that
infrastructure has to support both Grid and Geant. There are some 45 Grid EoIs and 15
infrastructure EoIs (Geant type).
FG: This emphasizes importance of having bottom-up coordination of some of these EoIs, to
avoid spreading resources too thin or arbitrarily.
DW: Expect calls will come earlier than January, maybe as soon as mid-November, so that
officials can go to FP6 launch conference with concrete results. But can’t publish calls until
workplans are ready.
Paul Durham (PD): Concerning possible downward trend of total budget for infrastructure
projects, how low can one go?
FG: if too low, better strategy may be to push for extension of existing projects.
DW: Gut feeling that lower threshold is 50m€. Remember that 100m€ aeronautics projects
already funded today
.
MM: Thinks that nothing is settled yet. EU may not allocate all funding at once, but in slices.
Grid community needs to come with with a strong, unified message on 3-4 October meeting.
Guy Wormser (GW): Emphasizes importance of the October meeting. Surprised to hear there
are 45 proposals. It would be good to have a list of these.
MD: Proposes that a power point presentation should be prepared for the October meeting to
explain EGEE.
DW: Suggest that message in slides should be that it takes 200m€ to do this properly, with a
breakdown in N different areas of the project, and suggest option that if necessary, project
can be split it into N sub-projects.
2) Review of other proposals
FG: Believes number of large proposals on Grid infrastructure is more than 2-3 but less than
45. Traditional supercomputer community has made one. Another one along lines of DTF in
US CoreGrid is one that is more computer science oriented.
GW: France involved in one project that is continuation of EuroGrid. Also in CoreGrid.
HealthGrid is another ambitious program (includes EBI, EMBL, CNRS). Latter could be cofinanced by Health. (Cameron and Breton coordinating.)
Jeremy Cook (JC): Nordics have supported a Grid project called GRATE for Grid access
technologies from various devices. Appendix three of the EoI has been circulated to EGEE
mailing list. This is a small consortium, 10-15m€. It should collaborate with other Grid
projects. It combines software access and infrastructure.
Maurizio Cecchi (MC): Telecom Italia part of “Agrid” initiative by 60-70 companies and
universities, which is aimed at middleware and software.
Sven Lung: Activities funded by France Telecom, including Grid portal access, security
enabler, methodology to implement Grid in large companies. These tools can be contributed
to EGEE consortium.
HH: LHC Grid computing investment 2002-2008: R&D phase 2003-05 20m€/year.
Deployment phase 2006-08 30m€/year. Altogether into Grids order of 150m€. Particle physics
community will put the same amount into this. So message is: don’t be modest in EGEE
proposal.
MD: Investigate whether smaller projects (EoIs) could work in the context of the larger EGEE
project.
FG: That would be useful. Industrial research forum is an example of external smaller entities
associated with DataGrid.
MP: Majority of 45 EoIs were large and many were application oriented. It will be difficult to
get access to information about them, since web publication was optional. Will need to try to
get information from sources in Brussels.
MM: Expects that number of Grid infrastructure EoIs with real weight is very limited, since all
major players already in EGEE. Emphasizes need to stay focussed in EGEE, not support to
many agendas. Prepare unified view and present this.
DW: Challenge is that there are Grid application areas that are strong compared to EGEE
infrastructure, so competition is tough.
3) Coordination among EU proposals
4) Partners resources and commitment
(these two agenda items were covered at same time)
FG: Meeting at CERN tomorrow (10/9) to see what can be done in common by consortia of
some of the other EoIs.
Round of update on coordination between regional initiatives:
Kors Bos (KB): Netherlands Grid consortium has been in contact with Nordugrid, agreed in
principle to common approach, still to be finalised. Netherlands will make inventory of projects
and people available for large projects.
GW: In France, meeting scheduled with authorities in Ministry, to synchronise the various
proposals.
MM: In Italy, organised all scientific sectors, computing centers etc. in BIGEST, which would
be part of EGEE infrastructure. All science represented. Work is to understand which science
applications should use the EGEE infrastructure. HEP is one of those, must find the others.
Also find the industrial applications. Develop business models and reference applications is
also important.
Michal Turala: Five delegates here from Poland, representing two consortia. These will
probably merge into one in near future.
Covers networking, computer science and applications.
FG: International domain is also important. EU is making specific program for South America.
Networking initiative in Asia-Pacific. We should stress this aspect of EGEE in Brussels.
MD: In Spain there has been big political shake-up, delaying efforts to coordinate activities.
Should have coordinated effort in a few months.
Neil Geddes (NG): representing UK e-Science program, which is a 150m£ integrated project
covering all branches of science and industry. PPARC is the largest science investment at
£26M. UK supported three EoIs, EGEE, the CoreGrid Computer Science Network and an
industry focused middleware development program. Expect to know the future of funding for
UK e-Science in next few months.
Marcel Kunze (MK): German D-Grid initiative was discussed this summer. Interest is high,
expect kick-off this autumn.
Brian Coghlan (BC): Ireland Grid consortium continues discussion with Northern Ireland to
establish links.
Wojciech Wislicki (WW): PolGrid represents 24 research institutes in Poland, focussed on
infrastructure and applications, has submitted proposal that is under evaluation.
FG: Romanian Grid is progressing.
Dieter Kranzlmueller (DK): Austrian Grid consortium proposed. Remains to be seen whether it
will be funded.
5) Plans for future actions
FG: Propose core team of people who can steer the EGEE program further and separate
editorial board to prepare written material.
MD: Need to break the project into some pieces. Need to agree on this breakdown, and start
organising proposal around this. Propose this as a target activity of the EGEE consortium.
KB: There is a lot of work for steering committee, so reluctant to wait until after Brussels to
form it.
MP: We do not know what proposal structure will look like, so caution against too much detail
work now.
GW: supports KB on getting steering committee started. One page document needed by
October for EU meeting.
MP: organisers of that meeting invite the people who have large Grid projects. 35 people
registered so far. Expectation is for EoIs to fold into each other at this meeting.
MC: “Agrid” presentation will emphasize that goal is to make something that can be
incorporated inside EGEE, and make supporting statements.
NB: at this point there were exchanges of opinion about what the document for EU meeting
should contain.
MT: Focus on structure of project, parts of project, and price tag. Justify this price tag in terms
of benefits.
MM: Proposal should include Grid middleware development. Guarantee robustness,
production quality etc. Provide hardware. reference applications and strong connections with
other projects. Each country should have a positions statement saying they support and ready
to contribute.
Ludek Matyska: Emphasize that Grid infrastructure like a service. Stress that EGEE supports
other groups and collaborations. One major infrastructure project can coordinate with others.
FG: Emphasize that we plan to deploy on top of next Geant. Apparently Geant refers to
EGEE.
DW: beware of using the term service. Emphasize that this is a project that integrates other
projects, and integrates applications on same infrastructure, integrate people with equipment
together.
Bogdan Lesyng (BL): stress that we should not forget the scientists doing real science.
Poland can contribute with personnel.
FG: Implementation of Grid infrastructure will involve medium-sized national/regional centers
that can share resources. This contribution should be compensated by EU contribution, in a
way that we have to decide. Not 1000 centers, but rather fewer, very large resource centers,
each contributing at 20-30% level.
But also need to make easier access for specific portals. People need training and assistance
at the beginning. Roadshows need to be prepared. Specific industrial action needs to be
taken with a focus on SME outreach and training. Support center for Grid needed too. So
there are many elements where other, smaller partners can be active.
There ensued a number of comments emphasizing need for steering committee and/or
editorial board to prepare material for October meeting. MP is helping to organise that
meeting, so will know by Monday what input is needed exactly. A proposal was made for the
steering committee to be based on expertise in specific technical components of the project,
but the majority view was for a committee representing the major stakeholders along
regional/national lines. The consensus that emerged from this was:
Editorial Board: FG, MP, Francois Grey + support staff at CERN
Interim Task Force (listed at top of this document, appointed provisionally for period up until
next EGEE partner meeting, should be formally appointed for preparation of project
application at next meeting.)
Alexander Kryukov is the observer for Russia on the EGEE Interim Task Force, pending
clarification of Russian status in FP6
The Task Force discussion led to a discussion of the extent to which all countries would be
represented in the EGEE project
MP: Note that 100m€ over 4-5 years is 20m€ a year, so only 1m€/country/year if 20 countries
get equal amounts. At some point in this process there will be a need to define who is best to
deliver what.
LM: some small partners may want to be included because they are very good.
FG: Testbeds so far are not more powerful that what one single university can provide. Need
to focus on deploying something that is big between major centers. Nevertheless, many
subchallenges can be distributed (e.g. education, call center etc.). EGEE has been attacked
by some small countries for being elitist. However, must avoid dilution of project to too many
sub-critical groups, even if this is not politically correct.
Jarek Nabryski(JN): What happens if there are several EoIs we have to collaborate with?
FG: cannot unify everything (eg supercomputer network initiatives beyond scope of EGEE).
Francois Grey: Trust seems to be a problem for this group in defining management structure
– ironic as distributed collaboration is whole point of Grid technology.
GW: Agree that this needs to be addressed for next EGEE meeting by Interim Task Force,
who must come with a proposal for overall management structure after October that is fair
and transparent.
6) AoB and next meeting
The discussion produced a timeline for the next 1.5 months, until the next meeting,
reproduced at the top of this document.