Minutes of Project Management Board meeting, 21st November 2013

Present: Simon Lambert, David Giaretta, Maurizio Lunghi, Sabine Schrimpf, Ruben Riestra. Apologies from Matthias Hemmje.

Preparation for meetings in Den Haag in December

Simon has rearranged the agenda of the AHM to allow for Matthias and Ruben's availability: Stream 1 and review preparation will now be covered on the first day. The session on Stream 4 on the second day will now need to be led by someone other than Ruben, though Ruben confirmed he is coordinating in advance with the WP leaders.

It was agreed that all WPs active in Year 3 should give presentations, not only those with deliverables at M36. Simon will adjust the agenda and inform the partners accordingly.

Ruben stressed that preparation for the review needs a focus on value of results and on showing that fragmentation has been reduced. Maurizio as Stream 2 leader proposes to the WPs to explain what are their main results, and how they relate to the common terminolology.

Sabine will ask if WP31 and WP35 can give short summaries of their work at the next weekly MegaMeeting, as preparation for the AHM (action ongoing).

Review meeting in February

The decision on who should attend will be an outcome of the AHM.

Common vision and VCoE

Progress with the two documents was summarised at the general MegaMeeting in the morning. Ruben is aiming for a coherent document based on the business plan to circulate next Monday.

The date of the soft launch is not settled: it should be around the time of the review but when? There are some actions to be done in advance.

Contract amendment

Simon has to write a paper for the GA meeting on the contract amendment, and is concerned that there will not be specific proposals that the GA can approve.

Ruben and David stressed that if there is budget available for reallocation, the PMB should guide from the top, to enable the necessary tasks for the fourth year. For example, Inmark is going to propose a market research exercise for the VCoE. There should also be some basic things that everybody does: contributing to the website, assisting with training materail, helping to define services for the VCoE, ....

Shuffling money between partners does not require a contract amendment as long as it does not change the scope of the project. It can be done as part of the final cost submissions, though this process is difficult to control.

There is concern about how ESA will utilise the large increase in effort that they propose.

%ACTION{ closed="2013-11-26" closer="Main.SimonLambert" created="2013-11-22" creator="Main.SimonLambert" due="2013-11-22" state="closed" uid="000255" who="Main.SimonLambert" }% WP51 : ask ESA what are their specific plans for spending the proposed effort in the remainder of the project %ENDACTION%

Concerning the GA meeting, the decision is that the GA will decide on priorities for the fourth year and empower the PMB to ensure that efforts are aligned with the priorities. Therefore proposals are needed for the GA to approve or not.

%ACTION{ closed="2013-12-11" closer="" created="2013-11-22" creator="Main.SimonLambert" due="2013-11-25" notify="" state="closed" uid="000256" who="Main.SimonLambert, DavidGiaretta, MatthiasHemmje, MaurizioLunghi, SabineSchrimpf, RubenRiestra" }% WP52 : propose priorities for fourth year for GA to consider at meeting in December %ENDACTION%

Cooperation with other projects

Simon reported that the DCH-RP project is keen to cooperate on a registry of preservation services. Concerning cooperation with SCAPE, it is not clear what each side really wants. Maurizio pointed out that simply having a cooperation agreement is good in itself.

Maurizio is participating in a working group in RDA on persistent identifiers.

Sabine reported that at the event on Aligning National Approaches to Digital Preservation, Paul Wheatley was promoting a new registry of tools. David already had some email contact with him. There is no harm in contributing but we should not give up our own efforts, and we should populate with additional information to add value.

Ruben emphasized that we cannot allow a reviewer to ask "Do you know what project XXX is doing?" - we must have the contacts in place.

Any other issues

David reported that Rene van Horik has suggested making a series of very short interviews with WP leaders on what their WP has done. This was agreed to be very useful for publicity and also to assit with reporting to the EC.

David gave a report on the "training pills". He is working with Kirnn Kaur and she will nominate people and pursue them for contributions.

-- SimonLambert - 2013-11-22

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r3 - 2013-12-11 - 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