We agreed that these individuals will coordinate primarily with the managers to arrange the work that needs to be done, rather than directly issuing instructions to individual developers. However, managers are expected to do everything possible to facilitate the execution of the test protocols.
We agreed that work should start as soon as possible, preferably this month, on defining test specifications and plans for future milestones.
We acknowledged some uncertainty over the AuxTel schedule and how it will feed into the milestones.
We agreed that future milestones should not need champions: they will be planned in advance and handled through the regular line of management.
Issuing DOIs for data is a hot topic; we need to understand how to integrate this with our plans.
IVOA
A lot of constructive work being reported; not dominated by VO theory.
Discussion of registering authenticated services; got a consensus on a proposal that allows the VO Registry to show the existence of authenticated services.
Preliminary discussion of alternate forms for VOTables:
Support for FITS tables because they are blind indexable.
Little interest in SQLite format tables.
TAP:
Interesting work on the semantics of tabular data, generating a complex proposal.
LSST should aim to solve some simple issues.
VOEvent:
Discussion of the Williams et al. VOEvent evolution.
We should aim to make a concrete proposal for VOEvent at the next InterOp meeting.
VOSpace is now a well-adopted standard; we should use it.
STC2 is close to standardization, but there is no plan for serialization. Tim Jenness is pressing on this.
At the July DM review, we talked about a variety of test specifications, design documents, requirements documents, etc which were works in progress or (in some cases) not yet started. Are they now complete? If not, how do we complete them?
Security requirements in this document need to be "indirected" by request of Donald Petravick.
There are no requirements on the Notebook & API aspects yet.
LDM-556 — Middleware Requirements.
SuperTask requirements exist in the document, but need editing.
Decision: wait to baseline this document until the Butler requirements are ready, in part because we expect some revision to the SuperTask requirements to harmonize them with the ButlerWG outputs.
Further discussion of Butler requirements postponed to this afternoon's discussion.
LDM-542 — Science Platform Design.
Will be discussed at the early-December Science Platform meeting.
Can then be RFCed.
LDM-502 — Measurement and Validation of the Science Pipelines KPMs.
This will be on hold waiting for Generalised Mario.
LDM-141 — Storage Sizing and I/O model & LDM-129 — Infrastructure Design
A short presentation from the LSST training officer introducing lynda.com.
DMLT requested S/MIME certificate for training emails with links. Lynda.com has implemented DMARC and I hear LSST will also be implementing DMARC in the near future. Is this a sufficient way to authenticate potential spam emails?
Significant interest in the results of this group beyond DM: Robert Gruendl will be invited to present the results of the WG to the PST.
Although the WG end date is constrained, we are cognisant of the manpower limitations on the WG. Given this, an extension of the end date is likely possible given approval from Wil O'Mullane.
The intention is not to hold the WG until the new-Butler-driven obs package converges, but rather to kick off and at least support the creation of obs_ztf in the short term.
The completion of this Working Group will be marked by a formal review of the delivered documentation. We expect the documents to be delivered over the next ~month.
Kian-Tat Lim: Set up review group for Butler WG outputs.
Where are we with calibration products documentation?
Do we have a a calibration database schema and an API (fairly simple find me calibration products relevant for time x — as opposed to "butler this for me"),
Who is involved in calibration activities?
When do we intend to have a plan with named people responsible for specific activities?
Which things do we need out of commissioning when?
Designs for “the calibration database” belong in documentation curated by the DAX team.
Detailed definition of the database schema for calibration products is pending AuxTel and/or ComCam; it's ~1 year off.
Gaia GDR2 will be made available as RefCats for use in the Pipeline in ~April 2018. Loading them to Qserv is a separate job of work.
We need to provide user focused documents (technotes?) organized along algorithmic lines covering e.g. astrometry for distribution to science collaborations.
We agreed that the science focused documentation may be a deliverable from the DM Science WBS (under the direction of the — new — DM Subsystem Scientist), rather than (or as well as) Pipelines.
Overview of IHS ticket tracking procedures and the procedure for out of band procurement at NCSA. Perhpas touching on communication channels and expediters.
Working group output — Data Access and Task Framework updates
Completing the L3 milestone schedule
We will ask Jim Bosch to act as product owner for Butler Gen 3.
Fritz Mueller will act as T/CAM for the Butler Gen 3 effort (at least during S18).
We agreed that many of our L3 milestones are actually more correctly regarded as L4 (ie, they are internal to particular DM teams). Only deployed services or other functionality which is intended for consumption by other teams should be recorded as L3. It's likely that almost all of these milestones will actually be delivered by the LDF as they stand up services.
Wil O'Mullane and John Swinbank will audit the existing list of L3 milestones, determine which should actually be L4, and identify services which are not unambiguously covered by one or more milestones.
Gregory Dubois-Felsmann: (work with Unknown User (xiuqin)) to schedule work to provide information on the metadata which should be included in pipeline outputs to make them useful for SUIT.
DM-12813
-
Getting issue details...STATUS
Kian-Tat Lim: produce a technical proposal for including database ingest and archiving of data for use by SUIT et al. in CI
Chance for local non DMLT members to share a topic of interest/worry and discuss directly with DMLT - could be one of the decision making topics or something else. If nothing is offered then this would not be on the agenda. Perhaps not so obviously needed in Tucson .. but at other locations I would like to allow a channel for DM people to quasi formally discuss issues that worry them or that they think we should be looking into.
In the August 2017 presentation on DM/Community Interaction Strategy to the SAC, we stressed the need for having a maintained website geared towards scientists with key LSST numbers, documents, notes, and quantities (see slide #12 in the presentation). I think we need to understand how we assign responsibility for organization and maintenance of such a website, its initial setup, and the interaction and overlap with the overall lsst.org website that the Communications Team maintains. May be good to have this discussion F2F with the comm's team while you're in Tucson.
Unless we are missing too many critical people, this may be a good time to hash out how to divide up the previously-unplanned work that will (IMO almost inevitably) be identified by the close of the Butler WG. Doing that will take more time than the Butler WG report already requested above.
4 Comments
Jim Bosch
Unless we are missing too many critical people, this may be a good time to hash out how to divide up the previously-unplanned work that will (IMO almost inevitably) be identified by the close of the Butler WG. Doing that will take more time than the Butler WG report already requested above.
Wil O'Mullane
added to 14:30 Fy18 planning part .. if not covered by the teams ..
Robert Gruendl
Is there a location to upload talks (e.g. especially for remote presenters)?
Tim Jenness
You can attach it to this confluence page.