Minutes of APARSEN General Assembly Meeting Monday 17 September 2012

The meeting was conducted remotely using MegaMeeting.


1 STFC Simon Lambert
2 APA David Giaretta
Krystina Giaretta
3 CERN Salvatore Mele
4 STM Eefke Smit
5 FTK Matthias Hemmje
Holger Brocks
6 CSC Heikki Helin
7 DNB Reinhard Altenhoener
Sabine Schrimpf
8 DPC Sharon McMeekin
9 AFPUM Christoph Bruch
10 BL Maureen Pennock
11 ESA (Not represented)
12 KNAW-DANS René van Horik
13 KB Hildelies Balk
14 LIBER Susan Reilly
15 CINI Mariella Guercio
16 InConTec Andreas Hundsdorfer
17 FORTH Yannis Tzitzikas
18 GLOBIT Martin Leissler
21 Airbus (Not represented)
22 Inmark (Not represented)
23 FRD Maurizio Lunghi
24 LTU John Lindström
25 UNITN Barbara Bazzanella
26 Tessella Ash Hunter
27 IBM (Not represented)
28 SBA Andrea Rauber
Stefan Proell
29 IKI-RAS (Not represented)
30 ONB Veronika Praendl-Zika
31 UPAT Panos Georgiou
33 UESSEX Matthew Woollard
34 CINES Olivier Rouchon

1. Minutes of previous meeting

DG said that the minutes of the last meeting in Brussels record the actual decisions that were voted on, but proposed some amendments following discussions, principally with VP-Z, who asked for some of the other proposals discussed to be included. DG asked the group's approval of this amendment. HB did not agree this motion and, after further discussions during the meeting, SL suggested the following:

MOTION: Proposed by Krystina Giaretta and seconded by Matthias Hemmje and Andreas Rauber.

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed, with the addition of the statement from ONB concerning conditions of their continued participation in the PMB, and postponing for further clarification the question of what was voted on concerning the call for management support/project manager.

Motion carried.

Motion was approved by the following: David Giaretta, Christoph Bruch, Andreas Hundsdoerfer , Rene van Horik, Veronika P-Z, Barbara Bazzanella, Simon Lambert, Heikki Helin, Matthias Hemmje, Andreas Rauber, Susan Reilly, Matthew Woollard, Ash Hunter, Mariella Guercio, Sharon McMeekin, Martin Leissler, Olivier Rouchon, Salvatore Mele, Hildelies Balk, John Lindstrom, Eefke Smit, Reinhard Alternhoener, Maureen Pennock, Maurizio Lunghi.

CB asked for all the votes on this motion to be captured - see above.

2. Coordinator's Report

SL distributed a copy of the Coordinator's report to the group and ran through the Powerpoint presentation attached to the agenda.

The main points were:

  • Following concerns from the other project members about IKI-RAS, It is likely that they will voluntarily withdraw from the project at the end of this year, and SL is in discussions with them about this.
  • All deliverables up to Month 14 have been accepted, apart from D43.1 which requires addition of non-English language training activities.
  • Important events for 2012/2013 include:
    • November 2012 - All Hands Meeting and General Assembly following the APA conference at ESA in Frascati
    • February 2013 - Submission of Month 26 Deliverables
    • March 2013 - 2nd Review Meeting in Luxembourg

Deliverables status

All Deliverables except D43.1 have been accepted. Four due (overdue) deliverables to be submitted at the end of September: D14.1, D16.1 D22.2(i) and D26.1. A large number of deliverables are due between the end of October and end of February so it is VERY important that we focus mainly on these over the next few months.

The First Year Periodic Report was re-submitted and some further amendments requested by the PO are currently being implemented.

Form C's were re-submitted. Further queries from the EC are being dealt with and will be submitted again by the 24 September.

Contract amendment: this needs to be done to take account of withdrawing partners Philips and Microsoft, however, the PO does not believe we need to replace these. Some deliverables will be deleted and some amalgamated into other WP's to re-focus and rationalise.

SL asked the group if there were any comments. No-one made any comments.

3. Planning, revision of the DoW and the contract amendment

SL circulated a paper 'Planning, revision of the Description of Work and contract amendment' which was attached to the agenda, and ML ran through the slide presentation, which was also attached to the agenda.

The main points were:

  • Year 2+ Plan originally formed part of the Periodic Report but is now a 'stand alone' document, as requested by the PO.
  • Formalisation of the DOW amendment including the withdrawal of Philips and Microsoft and changes to the WP's including the rationalisation and distribution of effort among the partners.
  • If the DOW is finalised in December without any addition of partners, the amendment can be concluded in January instead of April.
  • Strategies and approaches were discussed i.e. Focussing of the activity, Common vision and terminology, Project management structure, Training and demonstration and Communication and dissemination.
  • Proposal to delete WP12 and WP34, possible changes to WP leadership and possible budget distribution.

MOTION: Proposed by Christoph Bruch and seconded by Sharon McMeekin.

The PMB is authorised to prepare a revision of the DoW, based on the Year 2+ plan, in consultation with WP leaders and all partners, to present at the next GA meeting in November for approval in detail.

Motion carried.

MOTION: Proposed by DG and seconded by Matthew Woollard and Matthias Hemmje.

Work scheduled for the future in the WPs 12 and 34 shall be deleted in the revised DoW or allocated elsewhere.

Motion carried.

4. Management of the network

SL reported that there have been a number of changes that have taken place since the meeting in Brussels and SL is now working full time on APARSEN project management with additional STFC admin support. The PMB is now functioning well, though there is still a question of the responsibilities of the WP leaders with respect to the Stream Leaders.

SL distributed a copy of the Management of the Network report to the group and ran through the Powerpoint presentation, which was also attached to the agenda, explaining the revised structure of the management. SL asked for comments on the new management structure.

The main points in the slide presentation were:

  • An outline of the roles and responsibilities of the Coordinator.
  • Roles and responsibilities of: The Project Management Board : Stream Leaders : Work Package Leaders
  • Monitoring procedures and mechanisms

CB explained that AFPUM would regrettably have to resign from the PMB due to lack of resources at their end and this will take effect in November, thus giving time to find a replacement. SL thanked CB and HP for their contributions to the PMB and for staying on to allow for the election of a new Stream Leader for Stream 3 in November.

HB asked for clarification on the structure of the PMB. SL replied that the reality is very clear, the Stream Leaders are elected by the General Assembly as they were in Vienna and the PMB consists of the four Stream Leaders, SL and DG and they are working very well as a group.

There are differences between what is outlined in the DOW and the CA but it seems a pragmatic approach should be taken in terms of ensuring we adopt the structure that works well for this project, taking account of the large number of partners. It was noted that the DOW takes precedence over the CA, however, any anomalies can be fixed when we revise the DOW.

An informal and non-binding straw poll was taken on whether the full PMB (as defined in the current DoW, and including WP leaders) should delegates authority for the day-to-day management to the smaller group (mini-PMB) of Stream Leaders + Administrative and Technical Coordinators.

Yes votes: 18 No votes: 1 Abstention: 1

The matter will be put formally to the next General Assembly in November, and any changes reflected in the revision of the DoW.

5. The next General Assembly meeting

This will be held on the 9 November at ESA/Esrin in Frascati, immediately after the the APARSEN All Hands Meeting on 8 November and the APA conference on the 6 & 7 November. Discussions for the preparations for the 2nd review will be placed on the agenda for this meeting.

HB proposed that the meeting should also include an overall evaluation of progress to judge the readiness of APARSEN for the next review. She suggested we should prepare a high level presentation for the next meeting in November, which can also be presented to the EC. MH reminded everyone that there was an offer from the PO to have a pre-review meeting and HB thinks this is a good idea.

ACTION: The Coordinators to contact the Project Officer for the date of the next review and to remind her of her predecessor's offer of a pre-review. We should also ensure the deliverables are available for internal review in Month 24, allowing time to ‘polish’ these in good time for the deliverables to be submitted in Month 26.

6. Any other business

KG suggested that we should put on the agenda, for the November meeting, a proposal to elect new Stream Leaders each year thereby ensuring continued focus and fresh initiatives for the project.

-- SimonLambert - 2012-09-26

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2012-10-19 - SimonLambert
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