Notes of Skype Meeting, 12 July 2012

Present:

  • David Giaretta
  • Maurizio Lunghi
  • Simon Lambert
  • Veronika Praendl-Zika
  • Hans Pfeiffenberger
  • William Kilbride
  • Juan Bicarregui
  • Minutes: Krystina Giaretta

Month 16 Checkpoint Response - final plans

The main business is reviewing the state of the various documents we look at the procedures for next week. The plan is to have a complete version of the documents by the end of this week for review early next week. JB will be submitting the documents to the EC next week and any edits and additions required will be the collective responsibility of the PMB members.

Covering Letter - SL has provided a new version, which includes some responses to the checkpoint recommendations.

Detailed response to the Reviewers comments There is a version 0.3 available on the Wiki. Everyone is happy with this except WK, who would like something more explicit on D43.1

Year 2 Plan - ML has circulated this.

Covering Letter

Version 0.5 - SL asked for comments. DG sent an e-mail advising that D11.3 is an actual organisation. SL will re-word this. WK said that recommendation 2.5 is probably the most important of the recommendations and feels we should do something more direct to answer this particular recommendation. JB asked whether we need to answer each recommendation point by point. WK does not think we should answer point by point but to point to the other parts of the document where they are specifically addressed. This was agreed.

ACTIONS:

1. SL will re-word the section about 11.3.

2. ALL - read the latest version of the covering letter and let SL have any final comments.

3. R2.5 - SL will look at this and add more weight and clarity to the response to this particular recommendation.

Detailed response to the Reviewers comments

One of the key things is that this document has evolved into singling out particular WP's where there are specific problems with the reviewers' assessment or actions that need more in depth explanation i.e. WP22. In the case of WP43, then we do have serious disagreements with the reviewers assessment. WP12, 14, 22, 33, 43 - are there any other changes that merit being in this document? WK said that perhaps we should mention the project plan. JB said we should perhaps put this in the first paragraph of the responses as agreeing with the reviewers and pointing to the revised Year 2 Plan. We should also include the plans about what we intend to do on WP11. WK is concerned about the response to D43.1. JB felt we should point out the misconceptions about what is achievable.

ACTIONS:

1. WK will re-draft all 43.1 section of the response, taking on board JB and HPs comments and pointing to the letter R, which means Report, not Research, which is where it is felt some confusion may have arisen.

2. DG suggested some updates on WP33, which SL will include. The text from CINES needs to be taken out.

Year 2 Plan

  • The latest version was circulated by ML this morning.
  • This is now a very substantial document.
  • The month by month WP plans will be removed.

SL asked about the responses from the WP leaders in relation to:

- Deviations from the original plan in the Description of Work

- Rationalisation of resources (within current budgets per partner)

- Future resource needs

This needs to be included in this document. In terms of the effort, most of the information is already in the report and DG has identified some areas of significant under-spend and we should clarify this, as well as the over-spend. This should be done in terms of addressing deviation. HP said that we need to explain on WP11 as it refers to the core of the NoE.

JB is happy to make the final edits but there is a considerable amount of work to do to get this into a sensible order. SL asked ML to send the integrated version to him by mid-afternoon tomorrow and he will format it and correct as necessary. ML asked each of the Stream Leaders to revise their sections and send them to him and he will integrate these into the new document. DG suggested the Year 2 Plan should be produced in numerical order by WP. SL will put the whole document into a nice format to match the others. SL asked when ML needs the additions and asked everyone to send these to ML tonight and he will get the revised document back to SL tomorrow. JB said there are two tables on page 9 and 10 and wondered what the plans were for these. ML said they are:

1. Review of the main points for each work package

2. Re-allocation of resources

JB suggested that these should be removed and that we should just write some principles of what we will be doing during the second year and projections on the movements of the WPs without changing the allocation of the budget and pointing out that there will be some changes. The tables are just confusing and contain little relevant information. As agreed at the All Hands meeting earlier, the issue of IKIRAS should be addressed in terms of recognising that they are under-performing and that this will be addressed by the PMB according to the process agreed in Brussels. Philips and Microsoft departure should also be officially confirmed and there will be a re-focusing of resources accordingly.

ACTIONS:

1. All Stream Leaders to send edits and additions on the text to the current plan relating to their own streams to ML.

2. ML produces a new integrated version and SL and he will edit and format accordingly.

3. The tables will be removed and replaced with a description of the process, which SL will write.

4. DG will make all final edits in SL's absence next week.

5. SL and KG will put together a timetable for all the actions and send this out to the PMB immediately after this meeting.

-- KrystinaGiaretta - 2012-07-16

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2012-07-18 - 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