Hello everybody.

In my opinion what happened was far from being "open and transparent".

First of all, IBM didn’t even bother to explain the rationale behind this choice to a community that has supported the WCG for nearly twenty years, while Krembil has yet to show up here and publicly state what they intend to do and how they will manage the change.

Anyway, as a result, the WCG project comes out twisted. Until yesterday, WCG was an infrastructure that IBM made available to third parties after an evaluation of their projects. From now on the WCG will be in fact a Krembil "data center".

The effect is twofold. The independence and neutrality of the "owner" of the grid with respect to the future research are lost. Also, access to the WCG resources is at risk of being limited for third parties.

Krembil’s press release offers no reassurance. "In future projects, volunteers may be able to participate in identifying potential disease-modifying drugs for Parkinson's disease or biomarkers for rheumatoid arthritis and several vision-related diseases". These are all areas of research in which Krembil is already active. Indeed, why should a research institution devote its money and resources to projects belonging to other institutions, perhaps in scientific areas in which it does not have expertise or interest?

To those who are complaining about the current status of the WCG (website, recruitment, etc) I would like to point out that the websites of the two projects (HCC and MCM) that Krembil has led in recent years have always been kept in terrible conditions. So the real question should be: does Krembil have enough staff, skills and interest to, at least, keep the WCG up to its current standard? The precedents, at least from a PR perspective, do not bode well.

Until today I have run 24/7 at least 46 cores / 92 threads and have always been a more than enthusiastic supporter of WCG, despite the situation being very far from optimal. However, I think that with this decision IBM has betrayed not only my trust, but also the staff of the WCG, this community, and - most important - the spirit of the project. For this reason starting from today I am no longer supporting the WCG.

I hope to find good reasons to review my choice in the future.

I take this opportunity to thank all the WCG staff who has been with us until today.

NiK

P.S. I do not think it is of any help whatsoever, nor appropriate, to make fun of those who are expressing doubts and/or venting their disappointment or frustration by talking about "rage quit" and "panic mode".

For the record, I was referring to the user who called on WCG to: "Ban me from your forum, close my account, do what you like, I don't have to spew some happy clappy [EDITED FOR OBSCENITY] to please my new paymasters."

It seems like an accurate description of what occurred - reading the headline and maybe a bit of the article, and lashing out instead of asking any actual questions or doing any research.

This point is fair. IBM hasn't outright stated why they're departing from the Grid in the article. However, Dayle Diamond raised a similar point in the Q&A thread - they worded it as "why is IBM ab - here's caitilarkin's answer.

caitilarkin also said, after users pressed for the "real reason" IBM is stepping away:

It isn't a straight answer, nor an ideal one - but probably the best we're going to get. Perhaps IBM wasn't willing to put more resources into it, like some have speculated in the forums both recently and over the years, or simply wants to move on to supporting other things like caitilarkin suggests.

Either way, the main thing is that the grid lives on, its future is secure, and has the opportunity to continue to grow and support more research. If you already read these answers in the Q&A - I'm sorry, but as I referenced earlier - what company would come out and be more transparent than this? All backlash, no benefit. The answers caitilarkin provided have given transparency as best as we'll get. If that isn't enough for you, I'm sorry - but it makes sense, both from a public relations perspective and for the future of the grid. Focusing on the past and why IBM is leaving shouldn't be the focus of the grid's time and resources - their focus is on the future, next steps and the next chapter in WCG's story. It is not productive for us to press IBM for further answers, and the lack of those answers is not the fault of the Grid nor is it Krembil's. They've already issued changes, as I'll get into below.


This question has already been answered. To reiterate from the Q&A answers on that question specifically:



Beyond these reassurances, I am confident that they will continue to support various projects. They are scientists, who are working for a better future for all. Yes, some of their own new projects will come online - but as I said in an earlier comment, if anything it only secures the future of the Grid by tying more of its host's research to it. However, I still find the idea that they'll prioritize their own projects as a incredibly cynical one. They're scientists, and among Canada's best - some of whom have been working on WCG projects since 2007. Adding more incredibly important research to the grid should be its priority - not who is researching the project, ultimately. They've already implied / expressed interest in creating more projects in their area of expertise - and I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. If it does come off as a fiefdom, we can always adjust settings to not run their new projects, and issue our protest in the forums. I certainly don't want it to come to that, but I don't believe it will.

As for - why they'd support other people's projects? Because it'd be for the good of science, and the world! Because that's the mission of WCG, and one they've committed to uphold.

The existing team is training the new team at Krembil, as has been repeated multiple times by caitilarkin. They are seeking more funds to help keep the project going, and to grow it - and can always hire more employees. They can also draw on the existing infrastructure at University Health Network, for security and website resources -

The websites for their WCG projects don't serve as a good or fair example. They existed to present basic information, and there was little need or motive to upgrade it. Whether their resources at the time even allowed for the consideration of a site upgrade is questionable. I don't know how I'd feel if a medical-related grant for research invested tens of thousands of dollars in designing a website, when most information is passed along via the Grid. I sincerely doubt they got even a fraction of the traffic that WCG does, making the investment cost incredibly difficult to justify.

WCG is a far more important website and investment to make. The grid can - and has - done a lot of good for science, and all indications suggest that the new team is willing to put in the time and effort to make sure the Grid lives on. They wouldn't have taken it on otherwise. They have already committed to revamping the forum, and making significant upgrades to WCG's site. There is no reason to doubt this. Of course there will be bumps in the road as the site goes under upgrades at its new home, but only hindsight will tell us whether your fear comes true or not. I'm confident that will not be the case, but only time will tell.

As for recruitment, caitilarkin already passed along some suggestions presented in the Q&A as to optimizing some recruitment processes, and has been added to the list of stuff to consider post-transition.

I'm sorry you feel hurt and betrayed - I'm certain that wasn't the intention of anyone involved. It is always sad to see contributors go, and I've only been here a year and a bit.

However, as of today the grid remains essentially the same, still doing the same work as it did days before this announcement. And it will remain that way until further announcement, and the transition is complete. It is your decision, but most of the questions and concerns you've presented have already been addressed; unless you have more specific questions to drop in the Q&A thread, I don't know what to tell you. For me, they're being quite transparent within reasonable limits, and the questions you've raised have already been directly answered, with my comment above adding some of my own thoughts to help contextualize them.

Note: edited for clarity, and to reduce unnecessary spacing between quotes.

Collaboration in research is usually pretty well desired. I am wondering a bit if The Krembil Institute will be drawing any other research institutions into their sphere. Places such as Johns Hopkins, the Cleveland Clinic, and the Mayo Clinic. These are a few of the highest rated institutions in the United States.
Cheers

More collaboration would be a huge benefit! That's actually quite the cool idea, thanks for passing it along!

Most people seem to think that IBM is vital to the success of a world-beating project. As you can see, I have been here for a while, and have very high regard for IBM's technical and scientific expertise.

However, does anyone know of a disease that has been cured in all that time? IBM may simply have decided that their resources could be used better elsewhere. And unlike most people here, I have no problem with their making money. That is how the U.S. became the world-leader in COVID vaccines by the way, and will probably be how new treatments are developed too.

I will be happy to continue with the project if the quality of the work looks good, but that is how I judge all projects. I don't just recite the mantra that it "must be publicly available for free" that some people do. That is no guarantee of quality, it just means that no one can make any money from that portion of the work. One reason could be that the research is not that relevant to real medical needs.