Minutes of Project Management Board meeting, 29th November 2012

Present: Simon Lambert, David Giaretta, William Kilbride, Maurizio Lunghi, Sabine Schrimpf, Veronika Praendl-Zika.

Review of notes and actions of previous meeting

Simon explained that it has emerged that there is an error in the IKI-RAS Form C for the first year. It seems that the cost claimed reflects an expected figure for the first two years rather than the true figure for the first year. William expressed concern about lack of visibility of IKI-RAS's work, and how they will justify high person-month figures.

ACTION: Simon to to ask Ruben for advice about the IKI-RAS issue.

Progress with revision of the DoW

Simon is currently producing a revised DoW document based on the WP contributions. He suggested also sending the PO a short summary document explaining the general approach to the revision and the use of Philips/IKI-RAS money, and identifying the most important changes in WPs. This was agreed and Simon will write it early next week.

There was a discussion of the use to be made of the budget released by Philips and IKI-RAS. David pointed out that the risk is that this money will be taken away from us.

Most WPs seem happy to reduce their scope somewhat to compensate for this loss of effort, rather than demand more budget to do the work. Simon suggested that although this approach might be reasonable inh most cases, we could focus on WP31 for which Philips was leader. Sabibe reported that Stefan Hein has proposed on the wiki how deal with this WP, by shifting the scope away from commercial approaches and more to libraries. The BL and ONB could shift effort from elsewhere, or request more - it is up to them. David suggested that Airbus could contribute from the commercial side, transferring some of their effort to WP31.

ACTION: Sabine to ask Airbus about involvement in WP31.

Maurizio said that WP25 is asking for more budget to do more work. David replied that if a WP can already produce something useful with the effort available then there is no need to ask for more - WPs should not be granted extra budget just to do more. Furthermore Simon's spreadsheet shows that the limit of the available budget has already been reached.

ACTION: Stream Leaders to check that all requests for extra budget by email on the wiki have been noted in Simon's spreadsheet.

There is a possibility of introducing a cost line for recording of future workshops.

ACTION: William to provide breakdown of costs for recording workshops; Veronika to follow up with John Lindström.

Maurizio asked about underspent resources, particularly WPs that might not use a substantial amount of their person-months. Although the general policy is to strive to deliver good deliverables on time, there might be some cases where a WP could be extended, say with an extra task. It would look strange if a WP ending in M26 had a large underspend, so soon after the revision of the DoW.

Progress with review preparation

ACTION: Simon to revise draft review agenda in the light of feedback received.

Update/issues by stream, particularly status and prospects for upcoming deliverables

William asked for a reminder of the QA process. Simon explained the internal review procedure. William suggested that in December internal reviewers should be assigned for all forhtcopming deliverables, and this was agreed.

ACTION: Stream Leaders to contact WP leaders with deliverables and propose who would be good internal reviewers of their deliverables.

(Note: some internal reviewers are already identified on the deliverables wiki page.)

David reported that he has put some material on the wiki about the common vision and integration, and encouraged everyone to have a look and check consistency with deliverables. This material will be a basis for the agenda of the Working Group on common vision, though anyone may contribute.

Focus of forthcoming weekly MegaMeetings

It was agreed that next Thursday's general MegaMeeting will be on the common vision, explaining the process and the material that David has put on the wiki.

Preservation policy for APARSEN's outputs

ACTION: David to revise his policy/strategy document on preservation of outputs to reflect feedback.

This document could go into a WP11 deliverable. It is important that WP leaders should take account of the need for sustainability in their outputs; each WP leader should understand what is expected and responded appropriately.

Any other issues

Veronika asked aboiut the status of the stakeholder database. Sabine reported that she has recently talked to Gerald Jäschke and others about it and he will send a summary to David, Veronika and Eefke Smit.

-- SimonLambert - 2012-11-29

Topic revision: r1 - 2012-11-29 - 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