Reply-to: Geoffrey Fox To: Jim Bottum Subject: Please advise! Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:14:21 -0400 From: Geoffrey Fox Do you want me to interact with EJ i.e. is this the Real NCSA? Geoffrey Fox gcf@cs.fsu.edu or fox@csit.fsu.edu Phones Cell 315-254-6387 FSU Office 850-644-4587 FAX 850-644-0098 ------- Forwarded Message Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 17:17:41 -0500 From: grabert To: fox@csit.fsu.edu, fox@cis.fsu.edu Subject: Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details - --=====================_33212146==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Geoffrey, I tried sending the following to fox@cssit.fsu.edu, but it was returned. So, here is another attempt. >Geoffrey, > >By now Jim Bottum has told you that I am working internal to NCSA to start >collecting information and to preparing the staff to respond to the RFP >when it is eventually published. We've been talking trying to second guess >the RFP based on comments that have been made by various people at the Mod >Office. > >In that regard, at the request of Tom Prudhomme I am preparing a White >Paper that addresses how to respond to PET II. This White Paper will take >the approach of an Integrating Contractor and a Lead Academic institution >and several academic partners fro the scientific disciplines. It will also >discuss structure and management of the PET II program in the event the >bidders are permitted some latitude in recommending the structure and >management of the PET II program. > >However, I am at somewhat of a standstill on completing the White >Paper. Thus far,here is my thinking: > > >* Vision (for PET II) - need your help here. I think we could extract a >vision from the 2000 Modernization Plan at > >* Management - The PET II will be centrally managed at the Mod Office by >one integrating contractor. This contractor will be responsible for >awarding all subcontracts to other corporate partners and all academic >partners. This contractor will be responsible for deployment to testbeds >and for final deployment as well as all quality control. > >* Academic - The PET II will have one lead academic institution. The lead >academic will work closely with the integrating contractor to select other >academic partners for the various scientific disciplines/CTA. > >* Staffing - the current program has staff at all of the MSRC, but no staff >at the DCs. The PET II should consider placing academics at selected DCs >based on demand for service, support and training. Further, the >DCs should be considered for basing the various centers of >excellence.There does not seem to be any overriding reason that a center of >excellence must be collocated at the MSRC. > >I recognize that this is very brief, but the general thoughts are in >here. The White Paper will be more extensive. > >However, I need your input, particularly the vision. soonest. Also, I >would appreciate it if you would share your thoughts on the likely academic >partners for the various CTA and PEI. I believe that this is coordination >that should be started before the RFP is published and then continue after >the RFP is out. > >I would like to wrap up the first draft by this Friday (10/06). I may have >a thin draft ready to send to you by tomorrow (Wed) afternoon > >Thanks for your help > >ej > >217-265-8110 > > - --=====================_33212146==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Geoffrey,  I tried sending the following to fox@cssit.fsu.edu, but it was returned.  So, here is another attempt.


Geoffrey,

By now Jim Bottum has told you that I am working internal to NCSA to start
collecting information and to preparing the staff to respond to the RFP
when it is eventually published.  We've been talking trying to second guess
the RFP based on comments that have been made by various people at the Mod
Office.

In that regard, at the request of Tom Prudhomme I am preparing a White
Paper that addresses how to respond to PET II.  This White Paper will take
the approach of an Integrating Contractor and a Lead Academic institution
and several academic partners fro the scientific disciplines.  It will also
discuss structure and management of the PET II program in the event the
bidders are permitted some latitude in recommending the structure and
management of the PET II program.

However, I am at somewhat of a standstill on completing the White
Paper.  Thus far,here is my thinking:


* Vision (for PET II) - need your help here.  I think we could extract a
vision from the 2000 Modernization Plan at <www.hpcmo.hpc.mil& gt;

* Management - The PET II will be centrally managed at the Mod Office by
one integrating contractor.  This contractor will be responsible for
awarding all subcontracts to other corporate partners and all academic
partners.  This contractor will be responsible for deployment to testbeds
and for final deployment as well as all quality control.

* Academic - The PET II will have one lead academic institution.  The lead
academic will work closely with the integrating contractor to select other
academic partners for the various scientific disciplines/CTA.

* Staffing - the current program has staff at all of the MSRC, but no staff
at the DCs.  The PET II should consider placing academics at selected DCs
based on demand for service, support and training.  Further, the
DCs  should be considered for basing the various centers of
excellence.There does not seem to be any overriding reason that a center of
excellence must be collocated at the MSRC.

I recognize that this is very brief, but the general thoughts are in
here.  The White Paper will be more extensive.

However, I need your input, particularly the vision. soonest.  Also, I
would appreciate it if you would share your thoughts on the likely academic
partners for the various CTA and PEI.  I believe that this is coordination
that should be started before the RFP is published and then continue after
the RFP is out.

I would like to wrap up the first draft by this Friday (10/06).  I may have
a thin draft ready to send to you by tomorrow (Wed) afternoon

Thanks for your help

ej

217-265-8110


- --=====================_33212146==_.ALT-- ------- End of Forwarded Message