Notes recording the meeting with the PO 20120403

Present: David with Liina in Luxembourg; William, Maurizio, Christoph, Veronika, Simon by telephone.

We followed the wiki page NoteForPOMeeting20120303 very closely.

Website: David pointed out that goes direct to the home page of the APA. This is consistent with the DoW and is a basis for sustainability beyond the lifetime of the project.
AGREED: Website will go to top level of

D441./D45.1: Liina remarked that the action plan sounds good, and it is important to have a strategic view of communications.

Intermediate deliverables: Liina does not think it necessary to introduce additional formal deliverables. The important thing is to identify key deliverables with clear purposes and links between internal and external reports. It will be enough to list the upcoming deliverables in the Year 2 plan.
AGREED: Deliverables: make list available in YEAR 2 plan (no need to put in NEF) and spell out links in documents especially internal wrt external.

Recommendation 1: William and David described recent efforts on the common vision and VCoE. Liina said that it is really up to us to decide how to crystallize the work of the NoE into the VCoE. An important issue is motivation for involvement: everyone is in the project for a reason and so has some motivation to continue in a VCoE. She referred to existing initiatives IMPACT and PrestoCentre, though acknowledged that a competence centre is not exactly the same as a VCoE. What is really necessary is to have a method for how to reach the VCoE - how to approach it given the resources, people and problems. Strong recommendation that the deliverable needs to outline the process about how a VCOE discussions will progress

Liina will provide examples see Dec 2010 presentation CC vs VCoE (CC: IMPACT, PrestoCentre, 3DCOFORM - they are acknowledged experts and they spread their knowledge whereas VCoE brings expertise from members together and spreads that out). BL and KB were central to IMPACT CC.

Lunghi remarked that we know clearly that a NoE and so also the VCoE must have a different structure and different mechanisms than a competence centres network, in fact from the first document based on a membership association, now we have different visions merged together a 'service oriented' and a 'network of networks' offering also an open level for all the users participation with a clear policy for benefits and motivation.

MoU - need to go beyond these. Need to do the groundwork - why are members involved - what are expectations. Ali Conteh and Hildelies had talked to Liina about the book "Business Model Generation". We need to think about how to motivate people to become part of it without being an administrative burden. If dynamic then may not need admin core BUT probably does need something to keep things going. Members of consortium need to be committed. Each has to decide what they want to contribute and what they want out. PrestoCentre - very different model. Big members pay to keep things going. What are the common research problems which we can solve together. In short there is no ready made design for a VCoE which we can follow - we need to create our own design.

D11.2: add outline of methodology, who we will talk to, options to try - learn from IMPACT. Even say what we are "NOT"

AGREED: that we will not have all the answers by end of April.

Recommendation 2: No particular comments.

Recommendation 3: Simon explained that the Year 2 plan will appear in the revised first year report.

Recommendation 4: William explained that in WP12 DPC is taking on all the management, and all exchanges will be at least one month in duration. Exchanges: more and shorter exchanges OK as long as justified. WP43 is now focusing on design of courses and will take account of the recommendations. Although we take the recommendations seriously there is a sense in which they are very timely and by coincidence of timing are relatively easy to implement at this time - would have been a lot harder later. William offered to share the WP plan with the reviewers if Liina thought this would be helpful - which spells out the broader themes for the training in line with the DoW and based on recommendations from 43.1. William finally picked up on comments at the review about effort spent. In WP12 the 'register' D12.1 was supposed to take 4 months effort in the DoW and has instead been delivered with less than one month so far; in WP 43, deliverable 43.1 is supposed to have been delivered with 6 months effort and is currently showing 4.5months. So both seem to have come in under budget so far - though figures have not yet been supplied to the end of March. William noted that especially in WP12 it is structured so that partners can only claim effort now against exchanges and that unless they offered an exchange they simply could not claim anything. Liina welomed this, agreed that there is no point following a plan that no longer makes sense: if effort is not used in planning it should be retained for the substantive elements of the deliverable.

Recommendation 6: The three deliverables mentioned will be made consistent. Liina advised that the final report should give an overview of audit options: what are their characteristics, which is suitable for different purposes?

Recommendation 7: Maurizio is preparing a plan for development with resources and actions. The demonstrator will have two goals: to show the validity of the Interoperability Framework and to test some basic services, all this is clearly a relevant step beyond the current scenario fighting fragmentation. Liina emphasized that in general it is important to show how new knowledge will be translated into practice, whether in APARSEN itself or in cooperation with others. A general question is always: What is the next step? A NoE is a springboard for getting new developments into practice. We need to say where the RTD is being used - not necessarily funded by APARSEN. More details about SCIDIP-ES should be provided.
AGREED: Add new section at the end of each RTD to talk about OUTREACH and INTEGRATION, also mention SCIDIP-ES. We should include ideas of who should take this up and why. Also we should try to indicate what the added value of the NoE is - e.g. how the ideas of individual partners have been enriched.

NOTE Note For example at the end of the Authenticity report we can say that in STFC (and other large organisations) we will be talkng to the various repository managers to discuss how the ideas in the report can be used in their repositories. Smaller organisations may be able to say that they are taking these ideas on board in their plans for system upgrades. Tessella may say that they are considering adding these ideas into the next version of SDB etc etc.
We can also say that the report will feed into the SCIDIP-ES Authenticity Toolkit which will have a "half-time" delivery April 2013 and a final delivery in Sept 2014, with an overlap of partners APA, STFC, ESA, FTK etc. This will be part of the Earth Science Long Term Data Preservation programme around the world. We will also be carrying out our communications plan to validate our findings.
In these ways we can show that the report is just the start of a whole process.

Liina agreed that it makes sense to postpone some deliverable if higher quality will result.
AGREED: postponement of D14.1 also D26.1.
AGREED: delay D16.1 - justification - the link to D14.1 which is being delayed.

Liina asked that the revised documents should be put on the web accessible to the reviewers as they become available, rather than all at once.However she accepted that we needed to make sure that documents are consistent and that may require us to get to almost final versions of various documents at the same time and then we finalise them simultaneously. So we should see if there are at least some we can deliver early but we can deliver some in one or ore groups.

-- SimonLambert - 2012-04-03

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r6 < r5 < r4 < r3 < r2 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r6 - 2012-04-18 - DavidGiaretta
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