Ch. 1: Issue 175: Separate out the PMIx client interface from the CL/host interactions

[dsolt]

…y searching

[jjhursey]

Ref Issue #175

[jjhursey]

@dsolt I have a couple of inline fixes for a section header and ac expansion above that I didn't see reflected in the current version of the document.

[jjhursey]

We had a few notes from the Q4 2019 meeting for this document that we should make sure are reviewed:

• https://github.com/pmix/pmix-standard/wiki/ASC-Q4-2019-Meeting

[SteVwonder]

LGTM! Just two questions below.

[dsolt]

Text_changes_NEW-to-ORIG.docx
Text_changes_ORIG-to-NEW.docx

[jjhursey]

PMIx ASC Q1'2020 Meeting:

• The reading generally went well. A number of changes which were mostly minor in nature were recommended. A couple of recommendations could become significant in size/implications depending on how the working group handles them. As such, the group decided to neither officially push back nor vote on this proposal in this meeting.
• The group suggested the following:
  • The working group should apply the recommended changes to Chapter 1
  • Post a new version of the document to this PR with a reference to the commit(s) in which they were implemented.
  • Post a new straw poll on this PR with a note to the mailing list.
  • ASC members will vote in the straw poll and note in the comments if they wish to have a full formal reading in the next meeting. Lack of such a comment will indicate that the changes were minor enough to not warrant a full reading.
  • If a full reading is requested then it will be scheduled in the next meeting with a possible first formal vote immediately afterward.
  • If a full reading is not requested then a summary reading of the changes will be presented in the next meeting followed by the first vote.

A summary of the recommended changes are indicated in the notes from the ASC meeting.

[dsolt]

We would like feedback on whether the changes in the last commit are sufficiently trivial to avoid a moving this ticket back to a first reading. If you are ok with us moving this forward to a 2nd reading please emoji a thumbs up. If you prefer that the working group represent this as a first reading because you feel the changes are significant, please emoji a thumbs down.

Please use emoji reactions ON THIS COMMENT to indicate your position on this proposal.

• You do not need to vote on every proposal
• If you have no opinion, don't vote - that is also useful data
• If you've already commented on this issue, please still vote so

[abouteiller]

An SMS may choose to completely embed the PMIx server; thus not needing the PMIx server API.

Maybe different wording would work better;

Suggested change

	achieved using callback functions registered during server initialization.
	To facilitate the interaction between the \ac{PMIx} server and the \ac{SMS}, the \ac{PMIx} server API provides callback functions to be registered during server initialization.

[jjhursey]

PMIx ASC 2Q 2020 Meeting:

• Passed first vote: 10 Yes / 0 No / 0 Abstain / 4 not present for vote
• Discussion point here will be resolved in a separate, following PR.

[rhc54]

Given the status of this PR and that I will need to modify Chapter 1 to update the history for release of v4, I would like to commit this into the master branch. Can we discuss and perhaps get agreement to do so at the July meeting given that there doesn't appear to be any opposition?

[jjhursey]

PMIx ASC 3Q 2020 Meeting:

• Passed Second Vote 8 Yes / 0 No / 2 Abstain / 4 not present for vote
• The ASC also discussed including this in the v4 release and had no objection in doing so. So we will merge this into master and it will be included in the v4 and future releases.

[jjhursey]

🎉