[CIG-SHORT] Short-Term Crustal Dynamics priorities

[Brad Aagaard]

Mark-

Your suggestion for a dependency diagram for new features is good. I think 
Charles, Matt, and I have a good understanding for most of the dependencies. 
The dependencies as well as our division of labor have definitely influenced 
the order and the expected timeline for when we think things can be added, 
but this probably isn't clear. Making a diagram should help refine the 
priorities.

Brad

On Saturday 17 May 2008, Mark Simons wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Despite all the comments in what follows, I want to heartily
> commend/thank Brad, Charles, Matt, and Sue for their heroic efforts to
> build PyLith up to its current state and for their enthusiastic support
> of users.
>
> ---
>
> PyLith suggestions:
>
> It would be good if more priority was placed on getting PyLith up to the
> same the geophysical feature set as the original tecton (e.g.,
> earthquake cycles, gravity, large deformation, basic forms of yielding
> and other material models).  Also, the additional features of full
> restart files/user define pre-stresses, Green's functions, and automatic
> time stepping will dramatically increase the number of problems that we
> can address with PyLith.  These are the features that were requested and
> listed as top priorities consistently over the last several workshops.
>
> As a CIG development effort , I think it is important that we find ways
> to increase the user base of PyLith as quickly as possible - sometimes
> at the expense of "fancier" style improvement (AMR, higher order
> elements, or complex issues like non-linear fault constitutive laws).
> Thus in many ways, I would push for a reordering of the proposed PyLith
> development priority list/schedule, OR BETTER YET, the allocation of
> additional resources to let us make faster progress.
>
> Maybe, it is possible to build a dependency tree of each feature request
> so that we can see what can be developed in parallel and/or by people
> outside of the core developer group?  Then perhaps some thought can be
> put into finding ways to increase the number of contributing
> developers?  At present, it is difficult for others to contribute.
>
> An additional feature for long term earthquake cycle modeling (and
> glacier modeling too!) is some kind of controllable mass flux out of a
> subset of the model boundaries.
>
> Perhaps there should be some more explicit thought into how PyLith could
> contribute to glaciology?
> ---
>
> I think the collection of a set of semi-analytic codes is fine as a
> community building excercise, especially if it is the community doing
> most of the heavy lifting and CIG is just facilitating the process.
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> Brad Aagaard wrote:
> > Hi all:
> >
> > The Science Steering Committee will be meeting in two weeks to update the
> > CIG five-year rolling strategic plan. At this meeting, I will present our
> > priorities for software development by CIG. I have created two pages on
> > the CIG website to document our desires
> > (http://www.geodynamics.org/cig/workinggroups/short/workarea/planning/pri
> >orities2008/). One page is devoted to development plans for PyLith while
> > the other describes our priorities year-by-year over the next five years.
> > All content posted on these pages is up for discussion.
> >
> > Some questions to help organize your thoughts:
> >
> > (1) What obstacles inhibit your abilities to create realistic models?
> > (2) What modeling tools would eliminate/reduce these obstacles?
> > (3) If you are using PyLith, what features do wish it had?
> > (4) If you are not using PyLith, why? Are you waiting for a particular
> > set of features to be added? Is it too difficult to learn? Is it too
> > slow? Is it too inefficient?
> > (5) Are you satisfied with the pace of PyLith development? Would you be
> > willing to work on PyLith development? What sort of training (if any)
> > would you need?
> > (6) What other types of modeling tools, besides PyLith, do we want
> > developed? (7) Are there useful semi-analytic codes that would be of
> > great use if they were more portable? documented? open-source? more
> > efficient? Should we divert resources from PyLith development to support
> > this task?
> >
> > Please help define our needs and prioritize them for the coming years by
> > participating in this discussion. Send comments/suggestions to this
> > mailing list or visit the pages at the link above and add comments. NOTE:
> > If you respond directly to me with suggestions/comments, I will forward
> > your comments to this mailing list!
> >
> > If you are interested in participating in a 1 hour teleconference towards
> > the end of next week (May 21-23) to finalize this list of priorities,
> > please let me know what times on those days you are available.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brad
> > _______________________________________________
> > CIG-SHORT mailing list
> > CIG-SHORT at geodynamics.org
> > http://geodynamics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cig-short