Clarify three roles of consumers of the PMIx interface

[jjhursey]

• Clarify the three roles of consumers of the PMIx interface (clients / servers / tools)
• Part of the implementation agnostic/client separation working group effort
• Ref Issue Further separate out the PMIx client interface from the CL/host interactions #175 and old PR Ch. 4->3: Clarify three roles of the interface #230

Signed-off-by: Joshua Hursey [email protected]

[jjhursey]

@dsolt I'd like the IAWG to take a look at this before putting it forward. Maybe we can do so next week.
I'll leave it in draft/WIP until the WG gives it 👍

[jjhursey]

@dsolt Let's add this to the working group agenda to review in the next week or two. We reviewed it last year, so I'm hoping it won't take too long.

[jjhursey]

I pushed the changes requested from the WG meeting on April 5, 2021

[jjhursey]

Notes from PMIx ASC Meeting April 8, 2021:

• The Client role definition needs to allow for singletons (not started by an RM)
• Naming:
  • Remove the -only suffix
  • Consider moving towards a list and removing the -and-. For example client-role,tool-role \ac{PMIx} standard compliant
• Use case compliance can be a separate qualifier on the PMIx and RM requirements.

[jjhursey]

Please use emoji reactions ON THIS COMMENT to indicate your position on this proposal.

• You do not need to vote on every proposal
• If you have no opinion, don't vote - that is also useful data
• If you've already commented on this issue, please still vote so
  we know your current thoughts
• Not all proposals solve exactly the same problem, so we may end
  up accepting proposals that appear to have some overlap
  This is not a binding majority-rule vote, but it will be a very
  significant input into the corresponding ASC decision.

Here are the meanings for the emojis:

• Hooray or Rocket: I support this so strongly that I
  want to be an advocate for it
• Heart: I think this is an ideal solution
• Thumbs up: I'd be happy with this solution
• Confused: I'd rather we not do this, but I can tolerate it
• Thumbs down: I'd be actively unhappy, and may even consider
  other technologies instead
  If you want to explain in more detail, feel free to add another
  comment, but please also vote on this comment.

[kathrynmohror]

@jjhursey This PR passed its first vote on the condition that you apply the changes in the comments that contain the text 'revision exception'

[jjhursey]

• Revision exception changes have now been committed to this branch.
• I'll bring this for second vote in the 3Q 2021 meeting

[jjhursey]

PMIx ASC 2Q 2021: May 11 & May 13

• Passed first vote with Revision Exception: 7 yes / 0 no / 1 abstain
  • Failed without the Revision Exception): 1 yes / 4 no / 3 abstain
• Eligible for second vote 3Q 2021 ASC Meeting
• I confirmed that the Revision Exception has been applied.

[jjhursey]

PMIx ASC 3Q 2021

• Passed the second vote: 7 yes / 0 no / 2 abstain
• Will be merged into the master branch targeting PMIx v5.0

[jjhursey]

I rebased and merged this PR. It'll be in the v5 version of the document.