Verbal Feedback from the Reviewers (based on Ash, Simon and David's notes)

Comments on deliverables reported at the review:

D14.1

  • Good start
  • Needs to be clear where this is going
    • is there going to be any real testing
  • Marc to provide some docs on taxonomies.


D33.1

  • Part A OK.
  • Part B: Needs to be completed to follow DoW.
    • how were audits conducted
    • how to apply to different repositories
    • How does the testing help us to understand the 3 levels of certification

Send extr text to DG DG to organise Doodle poll for telecon on conclusions

-- DavidGiaretta - 2012-02-09


D24.1

  • Is a good document - conclusions are OK. A lot of things that are already known, but has identified gaps.
  • Needs more detail plan for next steps.


ID2401

  • No problems


D26.1

  • Paper was fine as content
  • Needs next steps and operational plan


D12.1 and D43.1

  • Doesn't correspond to DoW.
    • Presentation seemed to imply we would only focus on training for auditors
  • Needs to be rethought.
  • Need to think of staff exchanges in terms of training in general.
    • what is the substance of the placements
  • A more strategic view is required.

I think we had talked about defining a number of modules which could be combined for various target audiences. The first group would be potential auditors - because we think we can get that together relatively quickly.

-- DavidGiaretta - 2012-02-05

*WPs 12 and 43 – feel it doesn’t reflect description of work – want to see a linkage between these two WPs and want to be clearer what the exchanges will be about. Move away from audit as a theme. Don’t run training courses this year – need to reflect on the topics first. Exchanges should be months not weeks.

-- WilliamKilbride - 2012-02-09


D22.1

  • Good paper as a base
  • Need to say how can it develop into a real framework

Reviewers were positive with our work approach and the attention to the real limits/reasons of fragmentation, and good consensus on the wide work for the user requirements in the PI scenario. Reviewers said that the IF that is very promising but it should be implemented/adopted in some way, it must be validated and populated, after that with the framework we can start creating and testing some services across different PI domains.

-- MaurizioLunghi - 2012-02-16


Periodic report.

  • Needs to show cost per package vs total cost planned. Same with effort - used so far vs total planned.


Deliverables due this period.

  • Project management should be strengthened - streamline towards common vision
  • Be more rigorous with QA
  • More thorough reporting to give complete picture
  • Progress report should be sufficient to see what happened in first year
  • QA and risk deliverables exist but need to show they are implemented
    • The risk register is generic, and should evolve - could be a defined role in the project.
  • Website - can't accept it - it doesn't provide enough info after one year of the project.
    • need to do something with social media
    • needs to be clear in the COmmunications Plan
    • needs to appear to be separate from the APA site, but can still have links between each site. The project is not a sub-section of the APA, it should be seen as an entity in it's own right.

Project management

*need to strengthen quality management *need to draw together streams more effectively *need to 'define the fruit'

D44.1 and D45.1

    • Demonstrate closer links between Eefke and William.
    • need to be much more rigorous - more concrete and specific e.f. specify the audiences
    • Communications plan - should evolve and show what has been done at the end of each year
    • Management of stakeholders is also key

*Can’t accept the website – not enough. This needs fixed, so does social media. *WPs 44 and 45 – these go together. Want more rigorous work and more concrete material in the plans – who what where when

-- WilliamKilbride - 2012-02-09

Note that management of the website is in WP 52

-- WilliamKilbride - 2012-02-09

social media are currently in the analysis phase and will be determined more specifically by the end of March. This is already described in the communication plan and makes perfect sense as at this time we will have some more deliverables and "meatier" messages to be sent to the outside.

-- VeronikaPraendlZika - 2012-02-13

we had the stakeholder identification Megameeting in which we tried to specify our audiences. The minutes of this call are on the TWiki in WP44 and should be reviewed at least by David.

-- VeronikaPraendlZika - 2012-02-13

management of stakeholders: I am not completely sure if this is within the realm of WP44 as WP45 and WP46 is in charge of liaising with stakeholders. But of course we have to align our activites.

-- VeronikaPraendlZika - 2012-02-13

About 'communication' in general, Web and other channels, my understanding is that reviewers and PO didn't consider enough for a NoE the simple approach we presented ... of course the Web must be seen as independent, social media will be added soon, and I suggest that special 'cooperation agreement' could be developed with relevant projects or institutions sharing with them communication channels and events ...

-- MaurizioLunghi - 2012-02-16


Note there is an inconsistency in the DoW - two versions of deliverable list in Part A and Part B of DoW - latter has versions of deliverables every year - they want this - see p 124.

Common vision document (I THINK THIS REFERS TO A VISION FOR THE VIRTUAL CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE (DG))

  • should be delivered for this year - or explain why not possible.
    • Ash Hunter believes this should be written as a high level business plan for the Virtual Centre of Excellence
      • DG - we should aim at this but start more simply

*Inconsistency in tools to measure the common vision and defragmentation actions. Need to move onto the deliverable list and report on this more concretely (see page 124) *Introduce a checkpoint on the M14 deliverables, but complete the deliverables *Find a common vision that is genuinely common - find it quickly

-- WilliamKilbride - 2012-02-09

According to my opinion the common vision document should not only concern VCE, but also the main digital preservation problems. Recall the ..."fruit" issue (raised by Marc) during the discussion on Testing. It would be nice to have a common vision document, probably described in various levels of detail and from various perspectives (*1), that also serves the ultimate objective of the network: the defragmentation of the current approaches and research efforts.

==

*1: E.g. envisioned functionality, research agenda, integrated models (functional, structural, etc) and scenarios, integrated testing/training approaches/material, etc.

-- YannisTzitzikas - 2012-02-09

The PO stressed the fact that the common vision and the future VCoE must sharable by all the partners from the scientific and cultural communities and the participation adn tools must be accepetable by all, also by who is not affiliated at the APA ...... so we must be clear that our future work is not only APA and avoid this misunderstanding ...

-- MaurizioLunghi - 2012-02-16


M14 deliverables:

  • should deliver these in final form
  • checkpoint - reviewers will read them rather than waiting for next year
    • Year 2 training should be put on hold until the overall training plan is reviewed


Next steps

  • DG will collect any comments on these notes and send info to PO
  • Written comments expected in 2 weeks' time
  • DG will collect commnets on these and forward info to the PO
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r12 < r11 < r10 < r9 < r8 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r12 - 2012-02-16 - 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