Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Decisions:

N/A


Action Items:

Summary
Description
Responsible
Due Date
Promoting PIF program QMA-317 - Getting issue details... STATUS Better promotion & explanation of PIF program is needed.Ron Payne; Hannah Remmert 
Survey of stories/website QMA-318 - Getting issue details... STATUS Do a systematic review of what is on the website, in our stories and make sure all L3 areas are representedHannah Remmert 
Encouraging professional behavior at meetings QMA-319 - Getting issue details... STATUS Put equity comment up at the next quarterly meeting and call out the kinds of behaviors that should be avoided.Ron Payne 
Convening group to discuss equity issues across the project QMA-320 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Like to have a small group get together and start to tackle equity/belonging ideas for across the project. 

Broadening Participation would want to be involved as they have much of this kind of expertise. Linda is happy to convene group. Need to know who should be in the group. John/Kelly to give ideas.

Linda Akli; John Towns; Kelly Gaither 
Follow up on 2 survey questions QMA-321 - Getting issue details... STATUS ECSS follow up with Eval team re. questions Q6g & Q6hRobert Sinkovits; Lizanne DeStefano; Lorna Rivera 
Follow up on equity/inclusion for ECSS QMA-322 - Getting issue details... STATUS ECSS follow up with eval team to make sure the scores are representative of female views as well since it's so male-dominatedRobert Sinkovits; Lorna Rivera; Lizanne DeStefano 

 

Notes/ Discussion items:


CEE
:

  • Budget: not something CEE has direct control over.
  • Process & Innovation: Ask for ideas for team members to be innovative; highlight people/teams who are being particularly innovative
    • Haven't had very many proposals to the PIF, which is one way to seek funds to be more innovative. 
    • Some people feel the PIF process is intensive and many get shot down. May want to promote how many proposals have been received, % that get approved, average award amounts.
    • People can view status of PIF applications: https://confluence.xsede.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=1676576 or pif@xsede.org
    • Can work with Ron if help is needed.  

    • Kelly will take a more proactive approach with telling the CEE team about PIF opportunities. 
    • More streamlined/improved over time. 
  • Equity/belonging
    • Create mechanism to capture thoughts & ideas from everyone.  
    • Should this be anonymous? 
    • Concern about perception that some people's ideas are more readily accepted than others.
    • Lizanne happy to work with us on this. GT has been pushing anonymous reporting tool, but very hard to act on anonymous reports. Protected might be better to consider than anonymous.
    • Subtle comment. About how we interact in a meeting context. 
    • Are we recognizing everybody? Stories only about certain areas and not equally distributed across all L3 areas? Could do a systematic review of what is on the website, in our stories and make sure all areas are represented.  Get a sense of what is actually happening and then be more proactive. 
    • Put comment up at the next quarterly meeting and call out the kinds of behaviors that should be avoided. Everyone's personal responsibility to take this on. Making people aware would go a long way. 
    • Could enforce closed laptops during quarterly meetings again. 
    • Think about new people vs. old people. Need to pay particular attention as we bring new people on. 
    • L3s used to come up and present about their area at some quarterlies. Gave more visibility to the people in the trenches. Could highlight a different L3 each quarter.  
    • Give credit to all team members when reporting on projects in your area. Credit should be given generously. 
    • Culture things... who is responsible? Ideas would be valuable to entire project. 
      • Like to have a small group get together and start to tackle the ideas for across the project. 
      • Broadening Participation would want to be involved as they have much of this kind of expertise. Linda is happy to get it started. Need to know who should be in the group. John/Kelly to give ideas. 
  • Training: Bring in speakers on leadership, organizational dev, project mgmt, etc.
    • May write PIF 
  • Crosscutting
    • Prioritize ways to get funding to bring evaluation back to CEE activities. Kelly will write PIF. 
    • Eval team can only do so much. Like to be involved in talking about this. 

ECSS

    • Question Q6g & Q6h rated very low--may be confusing and might benefit from modification or qualifiers (1= always/5= never)
    • Concern that wiki continues to lag behind satisfaction with website. Look for ways to improve the ECSS portion of the wiki 
    • Staff evaluation piece was brought up again–esp useful for staff who's supervisors aren't affiliated with XSEDE
    • Equity/inclusion ranked very high.  Most male-dominated L2 area of the project
      • Like to follow up with eval team later to make sure the scores are representative of female views as well

XCI

  • Generally positive responses. 
  • No areas where staff are less happy than overall averages. 
  • Equity issue from last year was addressed and that response was higher this year.
  • Not enough engagement, knowledge, etc. in local site supervisor. Systemic within XSEDE
  • Perception that NSF requires too much work in terms of reports. 
  • Issue with workflow within XCI has been addressed at Indiana

Ops

  • Improvement in everything other than inclusion, but inclusion still ranked well at 4.09
  • Will continue discussion of inclusion, support & belonging in meetings. 
  • Bring back all-hands meeting to improve communications
  • Plan to have an L3 manager meetings at least quarterly.
  • Plan to promote publications initiative with staff and ways to get support for innovation

RAS

  • Improved on all indexes except support & belonging. 
  • Inclusion rated very high. 
  • Consider renaming one of these to avoid confusion between Inclusion and Support & Belonging
  • Evaluation ranked low
  • KPIs/metrics effectively used ranked low
  • Support & belonging had both highs & lows
  • RAS will work on reaching out to site supervisors more and Discuss & review KPIs with team
  • For XSEDE: RAS staff are at NCSA, PSC, SDSC, TACC–why are staff at these sites feeling low support from sites and site supervisors? 
    • Might be the only person in their group working on a particular project; may feel isolated.  
    • XSEDE work may be perceived as a small portion of their overall work
    • Supervisors at those institutions should communicate importance of project to their institutions. 
    • Local XSEDE staff meeting with everyone at the site who works on XSEDE could be helpful
      • NCSA does this successfully
      • Ask local allocated PIs to come talk about their project
      • Think about people who aren't in the room at these meetings–communicate to non-XSEDE staff at these sites about the project to let them know what XSEDE is up to
    • No longer an XSEDE all-hands in-person meeting.  1 or 2 day meeting of everyone on the project could be useful.  Don't tack on to week-long conference when people are tired. In-person quarterly meeting could be expanded. 

Program Office

  • Equity low here but ECSS is higher and male-dominated
    • could be reflective of male-dominated team feeling that everything is great, but team with more females doesn't
  • Thanks to eval team for calling out statistically significant areas.

  • No labels