Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Decisions:

 Summary
Description

NSF would consider "program income," which is same as federal funds received as part of the grant. That allows us to use sub-award structure that is already in place.

In case of XSEDE3, what would happen if the products continued to be used. Unclear. Formal agreement would be with UIUC. Haven't formally sorted out. Software developed under NSF is open source. Anyone could grab the software & sell services. No intellectual property ownership. Open source license that it's released under. Would be good to have preliminary answers to this soon to give to prospective customers.

Funding level of revenue?–an amount to make the service self-supporting.

Revenue eligible: XRAS service (Dave H), 2 at NCAR, Wyoming, John has a potential client

Agreement about aspects of starting to use service before they officially start to use the service/sign agreement. Needs to go on issue list.

Single Sign On Hub (Adam Slagel until he leaves)–ask Adam who he would recommend as contact.

Mid term & final presentations will be given. Technical contacts will join 1 hour kickoff call & midterm call and provide guidance/info along the way as needed.

Keep John in the loop on this.

Standard package deliverable? Varies based on research questions being asked. They'll break down timeline & deliverables in next couple weeks. Students managed by professional consultants.

Other services similar to XRAS but XRAS is more comprehensive. SSH is unique.

Most readily packaged: XRAS



Action Items:

Summary
Description
Responsible
Due Date
 Ron poll L2s/L3s to discuss ownership of products–how supported past the life of XSEDE.Ron Payne 
 XRAS & Single Sign On Hub are services to have analyzed.  
 Hannah to get the team an example of what IBC has provided in the past to help set expectations.Hannah Remmert 

 

Notes/ Discussion items:


  • No labels