Notes on APARSEN All Hands Meeting Tuesday 19 June 2012


  • David Giaretta
  • Krystina Giaretta
  • Simon Lambert
  • Christoph Bruch
  • Jeffery van der Hoeven
  • Heiki Helin
  • Rene van Horik
  • Mark Guttenbrunner
  • Eefke Smit
  • Barbara Bazzanella
  • Veronika Praendl-Zika
  • Ash Hunter
  • Kirnn Kaur
  • John Lindstrom
  • Yannis Tzitzikas
  • Sharon McMeekin
  • Andreas Hundsdoerfer
  • Gerald Jaeschke
  • Stefan Proell
  • Suenje Dallmeier-Tiessen
  • Simona Cohen
  • Veronika Guidetti
  • Panos Georgiou
  • Marion Massol
  • Victor Gorga
  • Matthias Hemmje
  • Hans Pfeiffenberger
  • Juha Lehtonen
  • Susan Reilly

09:00 - 11:00

Discussion on Rejected Deliverables D12.1, D43.1 and D45.1

SL and DG gave the partners feedback on the conference call they had with Liina Munari, the Project Officer and Javier Hernandez-Ros, the Head of Unit.

  • The updated Year 1 deliverables must be submitted in one month - the letter they will be sending will give the precise date [22 July].
  • The revised project report also has to include the Year 2 Plan, which has to be convincing.
  • Liina Munari suggested that whe might want to meet with the members of the Project Management Board and also offered the possibility of a pre-review before the Month 27 Review.
  • Javier concluded that he expects a plan to remedy the situation and commented that the project needed new impetus.

We are now just awaiting the letter from the EC. We can also respond to the checkpoint report, particularly in cases where there are errors in facts or interpretation. Matthias Hemmje feels that there are some serious misunderstandings from the EC and the Reviewers that need to be addressed. We need to make our vision and interpretation of the DOW clear and we need to work on two fronts:

1. We have to make sure that we clarify that there are misunderstandings that have not been sufficiently resolved and need to be addressed.

2. We need to ensure there is a clear internal review process in place so we can review the deliverables against the DOW and the reviewers notes.

Sharon McMeekin feels there is a big gulf between what is expected from the deliverables against the effort available. On the question of the staff exchange programme under WP12, in his experience of projects with staff exchanges, MH felt that such programmes are very risky and there is a strong risk of failure. He feels that we should re-evaluate whether this work package is of any value and suggested that, at the very least it should be down-sized. We should take the advice of the reviewers comments to merge this work package and make a contract amendment to this effect along with other changes that need to be made in the DOW. MH suggested that we should discuss this with the PO and that we will prepare a revised work plan that will consist of some incremental changes to the DOW, by September [but note that there were discussions and decisions on the DOW at the General Assembly meeting on 21 June that superseded this discussion]. We should therefore take the following action immediately:


  • Put together a letter addressing ALL the reviewers comments point by point
  • Look at amending the contract to merge or delete WP12 and review any other anomolies and ambiguities in the current contract and submit this to the EC. We will add this to the GA agenda.
  • The amendments to the DOW should be coupled with a re-allocation of resources. [However it was decided at the GA meeting that we would not propose a reallocation of resources for the time being; currently each partner will retain the same budget/effort.]

Hans P said we should look at the contents of the reports and with a more critical assessment. VP-Z said that perhaps more discussions about deliverables should take place at workshops, before they are submitted, and possibly invite external experts for a more critical review and maybe use some of the funding for exchanges could be utilised for this purpose.

We need to ensure that we do not focus too much on repositories and audit and certification as it appears there is an impression, from the reviewers, that this is the case.


  • Instead of the current weekly MegaMeetings, we should have a 2-weekly MegaMeeting for in-depth discussions on the upcoming deliverables.
  • It was agreed that all the partners should comment on the reviewers report and that the response will be submitted to the PMB and ratified by the GA.
  • We need to put time schedules for the internal review dates: (i) Pre-review, (ii) Review by EAB, (iii) Submit deliverable

D45.1 needs to be merged with deliverable D44.1 and we need to give more examples of APARSEN stakeholders.


  • Eefke Smit will ask everyone to add stakeholders from their respective organisations and will put up a list at the meeting for each of the partners to add their information.

11:30 - 13:00

Discussion on all comments made in the Reviewers Report

SL went through the action needed for the Period 1 Report and requested that all WP leaders should provide information about the reasons why there was less effort spent on the project than was allocated. MH said that this is quite normal for such a project and that most projects underspend in the first year as the project starts before the hiring process is completed and then, as the project gathers pace, this is more than compensated for. He reiterated that this is fully in line with the project objectives.


  • SL requested the month by month plans from the WP leaders within the next week.
  • We need to explain any deviations from the original plan in the Year 2 Plan. These can be justified because of: delays; internal changes; changes on request of reviewers. The plans must take into account dependencies between WPs.
  • We need to ensure we are addressing the details of the changes requested by the reviewers and their comments.
  • SL will add another column, linked to the first year reporting page, to reflect any changes of key personnel and their respective job titles. DG will send a link to everyone.
  • Kirrn Kaur and Rene van Horik volunteered to review the revised Period 1 Report.

Rejection of 43.1 - Actions needed:

Sharon McMeekin went through the report that had been rejected by the reviewers, outlining the reasons why the report was produced in the way it was and explaining the methodology. She feels it would be appropriate to seek guidance from the reviewers as it appears there are quite a number of misunderstandings and these need to be clarified.


  • SMcM will arrange to draft responses to the reviewers comments. This will be internally reviewed by David Giaretta and John Lindstrom before being sent out to all the partners for comment prior to being submitted as part of the overall responses.

14:00 - 16:00 Break-out Sessions

16:30 - 19:00

VP-Z reported that they had broad discussions on how to deal with stakeholders and the group feel that there needs to be a centralised database for stakeholders.


  • DG will set up a new central database for stakeholders within the next month.

The first newsletter is ready to be sent out and people can subscribe to this.

Branding APA/APARSEN - how will this fit together with the Centre of Excellence - this will be discussed tomorrow during the Common Vision workshop.

We have now set up communication channels

D41.1 - there is a conference list in place, which is updated by John Lindstrom. VP-Z invited everyone to look at this and the deadline for calls for papers in order to demonstrate the work on APARSEN. The events calendar will be updated regularly and VP-Z invited everyone to update this.

WP42 & 43 - There was agreement, in response to the concerns in D43.1, that both work packages will work together and respond to the reviewers by the end of June so that the PMB can make their comments. and Gerald Jaeschke ran through the various changes within the web site and the new structure. They are still in the process of producing and adding text, which will also be harmonised. It is intended that this will become the platform for the Centre of Excellence and everyone should use the social media tools to spread excellence. VP-Z has now finalised the introductory powerpoint presentation with contributions from all the partners. Everyone should have a look at this and provide VP-Z with any feedback. DG invited all the partners to register on the web site and e-mail him to obtain editing privileges.


  • ALL: Please look at the web site and let VP-Z know if there are any gaps and to add additional information.
  • Everyone should have a look at the introductory powerpoint presentations and provide VP-Z with any feedback.
  • DG invited all the partners to register on the web site and e-mail him to obtain editing privileges.
  • There will be registration for subscription to the newsletter - please use the communication channels.
  • VP-Z asked everyone to distribute the APARSEN leaflet and newsletter throughout their organisations.

MH said we need to ensure the consortium used the web site and populate this through their own organisations and any respective member organisations.

WP44 - we now have a new APARSEN leaflet available for all the partners to use for dissemination of the project. The web site has been updated and re-organised

D14.1/16.1 - Ash Hunter said the reviewers have seen this as a very critical work package as it is linked to others in terms of dependencies. To rectify the reviewers comments, we need to have test cases to assess the relationship and suitability of providing the tools to carry out digital preservation. We need to take a more rigorous and unbiased approach and more input is required from the other work package partners. The reviewers are expecting implementation and, to address this, AH is providing access to Tessella's systems. How do we turn a digital preservation system into a test environment?

- With a decision tree on the web site

- The biggest challenge is passive participation

They have completed their month by month planning template from June to September, which is available on the Wiki. AH will also put something in from the test cases as to why manifestations from APARSEN are useful.

Project Governance Issues

SL gave a presentation on this, following the reviewers comments and the break-out meeting.

  • Effective monitoring of WPs should be introduced, using a simple template.
  • The QA procedure for deliverables must be followed more systematically. It would be ideal to obtain names of internal reviewers of all the remaining deliverables.
  • Interdependenices between WPs and deliverables must be understood and monitored.
  • The PMB is not currently functioning as effectively as it should. Part of this is due to lack of allocated effort for management duties.


  • In the DOW, it clearly states that the PMB includes all the WP leaders as well as the stream leaders - this need to be implemented.
  • Everyone should look at the Project Quality Plan, which should be revised as necessary and implemented

MH proposed we that we should add some funding for the EAC, look at the list of EAC members and decide who we should use to assist as a "next level analysis". The proposal was set up because the APA will evolve into the 'Centre of Excellence' with APARSEN members. This should be communicated to both members and non members of the APA.


  • The PMB formally writes to the Executive Board of the APA to offer a membership model to the non APA members of APARSEN and produce a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Intent. This will state that the APA is interested in supporting the results of the APARSEN project and will this will be put on the agenda for the APA meeting next week.

-- KrystinaGiaretta - 2012-06-19

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r7 < r6 < r5 < r4 < r3 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r7 - 2012-06-29 - KrystinaGiaretta
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback