Awkward questions

Please click on the "EDIT" button at the bottom of the table - it will make things easier!

Review agenda item Question Answer Comment
10:15-11:00 Overview of APARSEN and the programme of the review meeting
A factual overview of the project’s workplan structure to help orient the reviewers
Deliverables submission status, resources deployed, effort spent
Management structures/procedures (PMB, QA, internal reporting, …) – briefly
Why do we have "Topics"? a) to aggregate results b) to help people from different workpackages communicate with common focus c) topics describe what is needed, at a high level (example "trust": certification etc. are just the means towards establishing trust  
  In the introduction you make a virtue of the membership bodies as a multiplier for APARSEN's outputs - LIBER, STM, DPC, APA and so forth. This was highlighted in the initial application and negotiations. What practical benefits have members of these agencies seen in the last 2 years from APARSEN. It seems to me that LIBER, DPC etc should answer this.  
  Is the effort spend on track? What problems have had to be dealt with? Are there majaor budgetary constraints to cope with the pending tasks?
Why is there such a large variation in % effort spent by different partners?
   
  Why are there so many PM in WP11? What visible results will there be? How can you manage such a huge WP? This is a compromise between doing everything in a giant WP and dividing everything up into separate time limited WPs. The effort is large because every partner has several man months, and that is necessary because (1) effort is needed to consult internally about the VCoE and (2) effort is needed to create the mortar to bind the results of the individual WPs together.  
  WP 11 has a lot of effort, many partners and is centrally important to the project. How did you involve partners in the planning for this workpackage? The planning for the VCoE was done in the context of the GA and wide circulation of proposals to the partners. Because it is true that it is difficult to ensure all partners play an active role without a face to face meeting, we have created Tiger Teams for the Common Vision and the VCoE. THese then come up with proposals for review by partners.  
11:15-11:45 Highlights of progress and achievements of the second period plus common vision and VCoE
With reviewers’ Q&A
Are we behind schedule for defining the VCOE? No, we planned to start quite slowly as we began to work together. The DoW make it clear what that the APARSEN VCOE would enhance the APA and so a slow beginning was sensible  
  Given that the ANADP process has already made considerable progress towards a common vision for digital preservation, and given that this process is open to all and has required no funding, is there still a need for an APARSEN VCOE? Firstly we have a contract to produce the VCOE.
Secondly ANADP is not aiming to produce anything like a VCOE.
We're doing it because we have a contract is perhaps the worst answer we could give to this question.
It is a correct answer - but we I'd prefer not to use!
What is the difference between ANADP and APARSEN?
I don't think that ANADP has a sustainability plan, is providing training, advice etc. If you know something I don't please provide info.
  We've asked repeatedly for you to engage with OPF and PRESTO which have proven their value and sustainabililty as VCOEs in different ways. Should the commission therefore simply transfer it's funding to these two bodies instead of APARSEN? We have engaged with OPF and IMPACT - see D11.1 and D11.2. We clearly have our own programme of work, which we must carry out and which is different from the OPF and IMPACT activities.
We have learned lessons from these at the webinars in terms of issues about setting up and maintaining organisations. Our plans address these issues.
Be specific in the answer. Quote 11.1 and 11.2. How has this engagement with OPF and PRESTO influenced the development of the VCOE?
Good point - of course it would help if you could also provide some specifics just in case I miss something
  At what point do you expect APA to wind itself up to make way for the APARSEN VCOE? When the APARSEN blueprint is finalised the APA will change its articiles of association - it will not wind itself up. When will the APARSEN blueprint be finished and what if the APA Board dislikes it.
We say the blueprint will be ready at the end of this year and that the APA will adopt it early next year. Since there are a large number of APA members in APARSEN it seems reasonable that their views will be taken into account adequately.
  By half way through the project you will already have ruled some things in and some things out of scope for the VCOE. Can you give us an example of something you've ruled out and what the discussion between members was like? We are quite constrained by the DoW in terms of ruling things in and out. Moreover APARSEN is not the only input to the VCoE.
For example given the DoW APARSEN is not creating software services or tools. However the VCoE will have these from other projects in particular SCIDIP-ES.
Similarly we realise that we cannot create training material for everything we would like, nor can we import material from other training courses. Therefore we are focusing our efforts on capturing the training materials from whereever we can in all parts of APARSEN.
 
  How many members of the APARSEN network do you expect to bring with you into the VCOE? What is an acceptable rate of attrition? We would expect all the existing members of APA to continue plus at least half the additional APARSEN members, based on the reports from the webinar.  
  What will be success measures for the VCOE? What do you think the VCOE will look like in 2020? The world is clearly changing around us but we should expect the VCoE to grow in importance and scale through the five years following the end of APARSEN. The breath of interest covered by APARSEN means that we are a natural home for many of the separate fragmented activities in digital preservation. We also expect to work with the other important organisations in this area including the RDA and ANADP  
  Are we behind schedule for the development of the common vision? No - we integration process is not linear. We need to integrate things from all the topics  
  How many agencies have actively participated in the preparation of 11.2? Looking at the document status sheet:
- all organisations contributed to the intermediate version
- KB, APA, BL, CERN, FRD, ONB, INMARK, DNB
made significant contributions.
In addition there were numberous discussions at All Hands virtual Meeting
So less than a quarter of the network has contributed in 2 years?
The named partners made significant contributions but all partners have taken part in discussions at virtual and face to face all hands meetings.
11:45-12:15 Topic: access
WP22
Future plans for topic
With reviewers’ Q&A
WP22: Can we see the software? What will happen after the end of APARSEN? we will not develop software but a proposal for a model to expose data in the same way overcoming the current differences among PI domains  
  Why WP22 has been related to the topic access if trust is one of the main pillar of the interoperability framework proposed within the WP?   I asked at least 3 times to Simon and David and PMB to modify this point and to relate WP22 to trust too in addition to access !!! .... ???
  Definition of digital object: does this allow for composite objects? it's not our business to define objects, PI managers must define and declare their policy about content definition, selection, granularity, PI technology and so on ... look at the 4 main assumptions underpinning the Interoperability Framework model.  
  How will user satisfaction be assessed? we will set up a demonstrator with some contents and some basic services and then we will measure user satisfaction with a simple questionnaire that can be used also to refine the services definition.  
  How is APARSEN implementing persistent identifiers in its own work? Is there a guidance note for partners in how to provide persistent identifiers for project outputs? If PI's are an important element for preservation, why do APARSEN deliverables not have them routinely?   I asked the PMB and David in particular to set up within the WP11 a workgroup to define the APARSEN policy for trusted digital repositories and for digital contents that we want to preserve .... they said yes but we still have to define in teh Year 3/4 action plan I suppose ...?
12:15-13:00 Topic: trust
WP14, WP24, WP26, WP33
With reviewers’ Q&A
How is the work in WP14 different from other things like the LOC or OPF lists of tools?    
  WP33: What is happening with the Certification work - is it being adopted?    
14:00-15:00 Topic: sustainability
WP21, WP23, WP32, WP36
Future plans for topic
With reviewers' Q&A
WP32: Why could we not get cost information from partners? As was clear from D36.1 the collection of costs is extremely difficult (????)
Costs are a very sensitive issue for repositories and many cost items are interlinked together with other organisational aspects so that it is difficult to isolate the costs of a particular repository.
   
| | WP23 and WP36: why could you not have delivered the 2nd deliverable earlier i.e. for this review? CAn you give us some details of what is in them? | | |D36.2 certainly not, as we needed the outputs of D36.1 as one of the key inputs to discuss actual experiences in deploying DP practice
  WP25: How will be the information collected within the D25.1 (interoperability projects, initiatives, solutions...) be maintained as part of the VCoE? Is there any specific plan to make this information publicly available and collaboratively updated/extended in the course of the project (and even after its conclusion)?    
  Conversely, D21.1 looks as if it could have been taken further - did you just run out of time?    
  WP21 is in Stream 2 - what are the technical elements ?    
15:00-16:00 Topic: usability
WP13, WP16, WP25, WP27
Future plans for topic
With reviewers’ Q&A
WP13: How will the database of standards be published?    
  WP16: The information on the Web site looks very thin - is it worth it?    
16:00-17:00 Summary and wrap up of first day
Reviewers’ Q&A
How does everything fit together?
Many deliverables make reference to other WPs, but has there really been much productive interaction between them?
   
09:00-09:30 Professional development
WP42 and WP43
With reviewers’ Q&A
WP42: How have courses and curricula been surveyed? according to which systematics or methodology?
How is training material being created/collected?
WP43: Why do we have no training courses until now?
   
09:30-10:15 Communication/dissemination activities and plans
WP15, WP4x
With reviewers’ Q&A
How are we doing in terms of partner organisation adopting the results of APARSEN?
Have we achieved enough impact within the DP community and beyond? Have we reached enough stakeholders and initiated enough discussions?
What is the added value of the work in APARSEN to the outside?
What do our stakeholders think of the work done in APARSEN?
Main results just came out in the second half of the second year and this was the reason why we were a bit diffident with producing messages for dissemination. Our approach is to go public with high quality and coherent statements and not spam people with insignificant messages; it took some time to consolidate the very diverse and large consortium, to receive and produce substantial statements. Now we are speeding up, messages over social media achieve higher recognition and feedback, webinars achieve more attention and response.  
  ARE we really changing anything outside APARSEN?
Why has there been just one newsletter until now?
WP45: What is our strategy to address our stakeholders, to select them for the Interactive Map, to manage and maintain our stakeholder database?
How do we avoid that our stakeholder lists get outdated and how do you keep refreshing them.
Why the webinars had just few outside partners?
See report re Associate Partner Awareness Raising re CPFFI in WP44, task 4420.
We initiate discussions within the DP community and also within the pharmaceutical industry, where a working group has formed initiatied by APARSEN
We do the updating of our stakeholder lists whilst working on the webinar, it is a dynamic process.
The last webinar gave good evidence on outsiders.
 
  What are the real differences between WP41/44/45?    
  How is impact measured?    
10:15-10:35 Development of VCoE
Integration
WP11 progress
How do we know what the buy-in is for the VCOE? We have explicit buy-in noted in the interim version of D11.2 and there is on-going discussion about the blue-print.
The criterion for success is not that every member of APARSEN joins the VCOE but rather that a good portion join.
 
  Is there a need for repositioning of the APARSEN VCoE vs. e-IRG, iCORDI/RDA, EUDAT etc.?   After Gothenburg: Still no answer? (Neill B. was there)
  Is there still a need for the VCOE?    
10:45-11:15 Plans for Y3, Y4 and beyond
Wrap up
We will have to wait a long time to evaluate the M30 deliverables - what should we do about that?    
11:15-12:00 Reviewers’ general Q&A      
  Question for WP16: What inputs from WP14 were missing and you had to wait for, that have now been delivered and have allowed you to make progress on WP16?
   

-- DavidGiaretta - 2013-02-25

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r19 < r18 < r17 < r16 < r15 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r19 - 2013-03-23 - MaurizioLunghi
 
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