Notes on APARSEN MegaMeeting Thursday 31 May 2012


  • Simon Lambert
  • Krystina Giaretta
  • David Giaretta
  • Ash Hunter
  • Maurizio Lunghi
  • Jeffery van der Hoeven
  • Orit Edelstein
  • Barbara Bazzanella
  • Andreas Hundsdoerfer
  • Suenje Dalmaier-Thiessen
  • Gerald Jaeschke
  • Veronika Praendl-Zika
  • Yannis Tzitzikas
  • Christoph Bruch
  • Stefan Proell
  • Silvio Salza
  • Kirnn Kaur
  • Patricia Herterich
  • Sharon McMeekin
  • Sabine Schrimpft
  • Olivier Rouchon
  • John Lindstrom
  • Susan Reilly
  • Rene van Horik
  • Frederic Darre
  • Juha Lehtonen
  • Panos Georgiou
  • Efim Kudashev
  • Andreas Rauber
  • Herve L'Hours
  • Mariella Guercio

Review of notes from previous meeting

Review of Actions

SL asked Veronika P-Z what the position was with supply of material for the introductory slides. VP-Z said that she has received almost all the WP slides and will chase the outstanding ones today.


On-going action to check the risk register.

Month 16 Checkpoint and the Draft Report

Before taking any further action, we will need to see the final version of the report as the draft is incomplete. DG reported that we were directed by the Project Officer to look at only some of the comments from the reviewers, whereas the reviewers have made some comments on all of their previous recommendations, which is somewhat strange. In terms of their recommendations at the end, we will be discussing these in more detail and possibly giving the reviewers access to parts of the Wiki. This had already been offered to the reviewers, both before and during the review but they declined. We should ensure that we document things so they are relatively easy to find. The VCoE is a mis-reading of 11.3 because the deliverable is the Virtual Centre of Excellence - to deliver the VCoE at the next review would be rather odd. There are some fundamental misunderstandings that need to be addressed in a face to face meeting or mega meeting with the reviewers and PO just to clarify certain aspects of the DOW. We have a complication in that the Project Officer, Liina Munari, is moving as a result of the re-organisation of the EC units. These issues need to be clarified so that we can start interacting with the new Project Officer - this will be discussed at the PMB. We need to get together some of the people involved in EU projects to discuss a strategy to look at the way we need to deal with the PO and the reviewers. Silvio suggested that we should discuss this in more detail at the GA in June and any changes should be decided at that meeting. Andreas Rauber suggested we should involve and encourage the reviewers more to illustrate that we are taking their comments on board. DG said that the PO responds to the reviewers comments and gives the project a sub-set of comments that we should follow. DG said there are a number of issues that need to be addressed but it is clear that, if we do not do the work on the next set of deliverables, then we will have problems.

Andreas said we need to look at the expectations from the reviewers and involve them in more direct discussions. We need a clear understanding of what they expect and what our goals are. Silvio feels there seems to be a misunderstanding from the reviewers about the implementation as we are a Network of Excellence with clear workable methodologies. This is a big misunderstanding and should be clarified with the reviewers. Rene asked Andreas about the question of software development and we need to ensure that the reviewers are made aware that it is not in our remit to develop software. Rene thinks the main issue is that the visibility and outreach of APARSEN has not been great. DG explained that at the EC, one unit produces research and the other unit produces services and these are clearly defined. Networks of Excellence do not do these sorts of implementations. David suggested setting up a small team with the appropriate contacts within the units to discuss the short term and medium to long term strategy. We should then communicate with the reviewers and ask what we should change to put ourselves in an optimal position for the project and whether we should revise the DOW to incorporate the reviewers comments.

Brussels Meeting in June

The first day of the meeting will be a general All Hands meeting and there is an outline agenda on the Wiki, which devotes the morning to Stream reports with parallel sessions in the afternoon, followed by a plenary session to report back. DG has put a template on the Wiki for preparing the meeting in order to make best use of the time and WP leaders should look at the month by month outline on this template to ensure this is completed in time for the meeting. The plans should take us up to the next review. VP-Z asked for a splinter session for Stream 1 because they are one of the two streams that continue for the full length of the project.


WP leaders should look at the month by month outline on the template up to the next review date and prepare this in time for the meeting.

Administrative matters

The first year cost statements have been submitted formally to the EC.

The Risk Register contains a table of risks that we identified originally taken from the DOW. The Risk Register needs to be reviewed as part of the project procedures and we should ensure this is being done as the reviewers regard this as important. We will discuss this at the next meeting in more detail. Ash asked whether each WP should produce their own risk register of technical issues, and this was agreed.

ACTION: WP leaders produce risk registers for their own WPs.

Effort Reporting Please continue to fill in your effort.

Stream 1 Integration - Deliverables and Work Packages

WK sent his apologies.

WP11 - preparing for the workshop and filling in the survey circulated from the external facilitator.

WP12 - Sharon advised that there was nothing new to report.

WP13 - Andreas said they are still trying to get information from other deliverables before producing their document.

WP14 - Ash has sent out an e-mail summarising the next actions and table for the meeting in two weeks time.

WP15 - The Brussels meeting is the next event on the calendar.

WP16 - DG said that we need to have the work plans and produce a monthly schedule for the meeting in Brussels for the delayed deliverables WP14, 16 and 26 and we will need to ensure these are completed just after the summer.

Stream 2 Technical Research - Deliverables and Work Packages

WP21 - SL reported that the kick-off meeting was held and they are currently making a list of services from all participating partners to ensure they have a good discussions at the All Hands Meeting in Brussels.

Stream 3 Economic & Legal Research - Deliverables and Work Packages

WP32 - Kirnn advised that they are involved in a Knowledge Workshop on the 22 June where APARSEN will be discussed.

WP34 - APA has taken the lead and there is work currently being carried out on this WP.

WP36 - Christoph reported that there is some concrete progress on this work package and there is now a draft report on WP36.1 .

Stream 4 Sustainable Uptake - Deliverables and Work Packages

Veronika P-Z reported that they had a conference call on 'Spreading Excellence' in preparation for the All Hands Meeting and are currently working on this session. Work is continuing on the new appearance of the web site and it is hoped that they will be able to present something at the end of the All Hands Meeting.

DG advised the partners about the Flemish project called 'Business Case for Shared Digital Archives' who would like to cooperate with the APARSEN project

Any other topics

-- KrystinaGiaretta - 2012-06-06

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2012-06-06 - 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