[CIG-MC] Reminder: Input for GLADE Townhall Meeting

Magali Billen mibillen at ucdavis.edu
Mon Jul 19 09:35:12 PDT 2010

Just a reminder that we really need to hear from you on what topics  
should be covered
at the GLADE townhall meeting by TOMORROW (tuesday).

We would like to hear from all current or potential users of the  
software and we'd really like to hear from the working groups and SSC  
We really need EVERYONE's input to make this townhall meeting useful.
Thank you,

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Magali Billen <mibillen at ucdavis.edu>
> Date: July 15, 2010 10:22:23 AM PDT
> To: cig-mc at geodynamics.org, cig-long at geodynamics.org, cig-magma at geodynamics.org 
> , Bruce Buffett <bbuffett at berkeley.edu>, Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at math.tamu.edu 
> >, Andy Freed <freed at purdue.edu>, Omar Tinoco  
> <acmtinoco at ucdavis.edu>, Garrett Ito <gito at hawaii.edu>, Luc Lavier <luc at ig.utexas.edu 
> >, Jeroen Tromp <jtromp at gps.caltech.edu>, Peter Olson <olson at jhu.edu>
> Cc: Louise Kellogg <kellogg at ucdavis.edu>
> Subject: Input needed for GLADE Townhall Meeting
> Dear SSC and Working Group Members,
> The GLADE (mantle & long-term dynamics)  workshop is less than two  
> weeks away.
> At this meeting there will be a 2 hour CIG Townhall Meeting on  
> Monday, July 26th hosted
> by Wolfgang Bangerth and myself.
> We are writing to ask for your input on topics that should be  
> discussed at this meeting
> and I need this feedback by next Tuesday, July 20th.
> We will take your feedback and create an agenda for the meeting that  
> is sent out to all
> participants before the start of the meeting.
> This townhall meeting is an opportunity to get immediate guidance  
> for the continuation of CIG on the
> directions the community would like to see the Mantle Convection and  
> Long Terms tectonics
> groups going.
> For example, what resources should be put towards continued  
> development and support
> of CitcomS and GALE - should these be big changes, or focused on  
> making these two
> codes more user friendly, adding options that build on what's  
> already in the code and continue
> to "clean up" the codes? OR are there significant changes to these  
> codes that are needed to
> accomplish the science you want to be doing? Should these changes be  
> made or should resources
> be focused on completely new codes?
> What major development directions are in the works and how are these  
> related to CIG?
> The NSF proposal for the continuation of CIG:
> http://www.geodynamics.org/cig/proposalsndocs/documents/cig2-2009-proposal.pdf
> highlighted things like developing AMR codes (like Rhea),  
> multiphysics coupling (solid and fluids
> for mantle-lithosphere-magma simulations), adjoints and inversions  
> and building on
> existing packages like deal.II and FEniCS.  What is the time-line  
> for development of this new
> generation of codes?
> In short - what are your computational needs - are there CIG tools  
> available now that could
> be improved to meet these needs? If not, what capabilities should be  
> the priorities in developing
> new software?
> Please e-mail us your feedback by next Tuesday, July 20th.
> Sincerely,
> Magali Billen and Wolfgang Bangerth
> -----------------------------
> Associate Professor, U.C. Davis
> Department of Geology/KeckCAVEs
> Earth & Physical Sciences Bldg, rm 2129
> Davis, CA 95616
> -----------------
> mibillen at ucdavis.edu
> (530) 754-5696
> --------------------------
> ** Note new e-mail, building, office
>     information as of Sept. 2009 **
> -----------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://geodynamics.org/pipermail/cig-mc/attachments/20100719/e5e41324/attachment.htm 

More information about the CIG-MC mailing list