Set up SLA to support the VO

c-scale-community / workflow-automated-river-forecasts

Porting and deploying the Seasonal River Discharge Forecasts use case to C-SCALE

Apache License 2.0

1 stars 0 forks source link

Set up SLA to support the VO #5

Closed backeb closed 3 years ago

backeb commented 3 years ago

Hi @enolfc and @sebastian-luna-valero,

@sperna has completed the VO registration, see #1.

Could you assist her in setting up an SLA with the providers?

The providers are EODC and SURF: https://confluence.egi.eu/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=CSCALE&title=Use+cases%2C+providers+and+teams

sebastian-luna-valero commented 3 years ago

Hi @backeb

As discussed in our meeting on 15th June:

both EODC and SURF will arrange their independent onboarding processes.
we will follow-up with an internal discussion at EGI regarding SLAs for providers outside of the EGI Federation and services out of the EGI Service portfolio.

Would you like to track progress of both tasks in this ticket?

Best regards, Sebastian

backeb commented 3 years ago

Hi @sebastian-luna-valero

I would suggest we provide a summary as to why the EGI SLA template cannot be used for this use case in this ticket and then close it - could you do that?

I would then open two other tickets e.g. "Onboarding to EODC" and "Onboarding to SURF", where we track the progress on getting access to resources via EODC / SURF workflows. @tclark-eodc @oonkjbr what do you think?

cc @sperna @sophieherrmann @christophreimer

sebastian-luna-valero commented 3 years ago

Sure!

EGI SLAs/OLAs are for:

Resource providers that are part of the EGI Federation: https://www.egi.eu/federation/, and
Services that are part of the EGI Service Portfolio: https://www.egi.eu/services/

So far I think the Aquamonitor use case is the only one that meets these requirements, looking at the shared google doc. Therefore we need to discuss further how SLAs could be defined for the other use cases.

I have raised this up internally at EGI and will provide feedback in due course. Anyone wanting to contribute, please let us know. @oonkjbr did I understand it correctly that you would like to participate in this conversation provided that SURF is involved in a similar process?

Best regards, Sebastian

oonkjbr commented 3 years ago

Dear @sebastian-luna-valero , @backeb

1) Regarding SLA's. I personally think that we do not need these at this point and in fact they could complicate things at this stage. Perhaps in 2022 we can pick the SLA discussion up and see whether there is a real need for a SLA. For 2021 I/SURF/T3.2 is concerned with the AUP/EUA and GDPR discussion as they pertain to the compute federation and I think that is enough for now on our plates. Would shifting this topic to 2022 and evaluate it there be ok for you? I agree with @backeb that lets conclude this ticket with reasons as to why the EGI fed SLA cannot be used (i.e., this is not the EGI fed) and mention future action items.

2) Regarding onboarding tickets. @backeb , yes this is a good idea.

best, -R

backeb commented 3 years ago

Thanks @sebastian-luna-valero and @oonkjbr for your input. I will close this ticket then and have also created a backlog ticket to discuss SLA requirements next year: #7