@ mdk777: It sounds like you want a new points system, or an adjustment to the current points system. You also want to know why the change was made in the threshold.
Nope.
It really makes no difference to me whatsoever.
If PG wants 3 separate(smp,GPU,BA) or one point system doesn't matter.
If PG wants BA to represent the top 10%, 5%, or 1% doesn't matter.
What matters is that they should be able to explain and defend how they come to the decision.
I don't care at all about the outcome.
I really believe the PROCESS is critical to donor morale,I really believe the PROCESS is critical to the credibility of the project.
I know I am being redundant. But you and 7im keep trying to move off this central point.
Nowhere did I see an announcement that PG would continually adjust the core count to insure that BA machines would represent some arbitrary and capriciously predetermined % of smp machines.
We have a policy of periodically re-evaluating the bigadv program, including the threshold required to run bigadv projects.
Is not a defined rubric. It is not defined metric that anybody can use.
If this always was the criteria, I would not have any problem with constant adjustment.
"Hey, we are going to reward the top 1% of the fastest machines with a 20% bonus. Since this is a constantly changing, you will only know that you are that top 1% when you receive the bonus. It will be determined in real time by the average return time over the preceding 24 hours. Good luck competing and speeding up our science at the same time."
I am totally fine with that.
Nope, I don't have any problem with any combination or permutation of criteria for points discussed by donors in this thread.
What I have a problem with is Bi-annual announcements of change without any underlying logic, predictability, or accountability.
Saying that donors should, or could, or would have been able to make a guess about the announcements underlying logic and rationale just doesn't cut it for me.
Why was the donor advisory Board a waste of time?
In my opinion, because it added a layer of non-communication.
Instead of opening the process, it actually added a second tier of clandestine discussion. (which I guess just wasn't all that productive anyway)
Why are donors angry? because of points?
NO
they are angry because they were blindsided. They are angry because in good faith they took thousands of their limited resource dollars and planned to contribute,... planned to play the game,... as they understood it. Then the rules were changed.
I again have written this at least a dozen times in the last 7 years.
All donors want is clear, predictable and reliable information to make informed choices.
You can try and spin, and miss-characterize the discussion in any way you want. PG failed these donors yet again in this respect. Donors deserve better.