Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
  • ECSS Staff Survey (e-mail sent out 2/12/2019). Currently only 16 people have responded
  • Agenda

    Updates

    • Lars Koesterke is replacing John Cazes as the L3 manager for ESCC

    • Rob Quick has replaced Marlon Pierce as L3 manager for ESSGW

    • As of late last year, Bob and Phil are fully in their roles as ECSS co-directors

    • None of these change should have any practical impact on your ECSS work

    • ECSS-All meetings will be held quarterly

    Training and Project Improvement Fund (PIF)

    • Background

      • We want to start dedicating 10% of our effort to staff training

      • For someone who charges 25% of their time to ECSS, this is about 50 hours/year.

      • We don’t expect that this time will be used evenly over the course of the year, but instead will be taken in chunks at conferences, workshops, or online classes.

      • In some cases, the training may be done when an ECSS staffer is between projects.

      • The biggest complication is funding. Your L3 manager can approve the training, but the local subaward PI needs to approve funds. To make this easier, we may submit a PIF to cover expenses once we have estimates of the demand.

    • Discussion - turning things over to the group, with some talking point to get things rolling

      • Would you like to take advantage of the training opportunities?

      • Do you prefer in-person (workshops, conferences) or online (Coursera, edX, etc.) training?

        • Coursera

          • There are a lot of things available on Coursera (not for credit unless you want to pay for a certificate) 

            • For the things that require payment, do you think it's worth it to pay for the courses?

              • Yes some course packages are behind a paywall

          • Can you bundle a handful of different courses? If so is it possible to have them discounted

            • Robert Sinkovits will look into that
            • Then maybe we can poll to see what people are interested in and create a curated package
          • If it would allow you to take on courses that allows you to do work you wouldn't have been able to do prior to taking the course, then your attendance should be supported
          • Of the call attendees who would be interested in attending Coursera (online) courses: ~80%
        • Who would be interested to in person standalone workshops/tutorials (Requiring some sort of travel to attend): ~53% 
        • Supercomputing offers good workshops and trainings? Would it be possible for ECSS staff members to attend for that?

          • Yes, this would be something that we would be able to cover with the PIF

        • We need to think about replacements for the ECSS-Training we used to hold at PEARC (formerly XSEDE Conference) 
        • Remember that you can block out 10% of your time for training (~2 hours out of your time per week, you can do that). However, still discuss what training you would like to attend with your L3 manager
        • Who would be interested in doing a workshop at the beginning or following a conference (not a standalone workshop/tutorial)? ~67% 
        • ECSS MGMT will send out for more information to the ECSS Groups.IO to get more specifics on training activities that ECSS staff would like to attend
        • Are there things you're particularly interested in attending (topics)?
          • Most of the ECSSers deal with data, however, we don't have a very broad understanding of research data management.
          • Suggestion for a focused workshop topic: Modern GPU programming, including overlap of data flow with computation
        • Is there an XSEDE clearing that needs to happen for the funds to be available? How is this to be handled?
          • That's what the Project Improvement Funds are for. Once we get a feel for how much money we need for the event, ECSS Management would put together a budget then send that to senior management for approval
          • If the funding comes through then what?
            • ECSS has discretion to spend that money. Sub award PIs can then spend that money for your travel 
          • We want to be able to pool together requests. IE 5 ECSSers interested in attending a workshop and 10 people are interested in doing an online course, then we could combine that in one PIF after ECSS develops a budget breakdown for funding for each site. 
      • Is there a critical mass for demand in a particular area (e.g. machine learning) that would warrant an ECSS-specific event?

      • Feel free to send comments re: training directly to Bob and Phil. We are very interested to know more about what you would like to attend 

    Focus Group Discussion Follow-up

    Link to full focus group report


  • Adaptive reviews: How do you feel about the process? Is there enough guidance provided on how to conduct these reviews?

  • ECSS projects: Are you getting sufficient opportunity to choose projects you’d like to work on? Do you have enough time to dedicate to the projects you’re assigned to? How well is the current JIRA implementation working for managing your ECSS projects?

  • Feedback to local institutions: What mechanisms would be helpful to convey value of ECSS work to your local institutions/managers?
  • Discussion
    • We are just beginning this discussion on things that came up during the focus group that ECSS staff attended at PEARC18
    • Adaptive Reviews
      • I found that during the adaptive review, sometimes a SP gets overzealous about certain projects and what the reviewers think
        • Do you think the SP is influencing the outcome?
          • Maybe
        • When the SP puts a finger or their opinion in the review process, it moves the discussion in one direction. Other reviewers may not be comfortable if they have contrary opinions
        • Would you prefer a system that is aware of conflicts of interests?
          • Not sure, just wanted to identify a rough spot. 
        • Bob: As an adaptive reviewer, you should review with your conscience. You need to be allowed to voice your opinion
          • I want to handle this better. I do value their opinion. We might have contrary opinions, but that doesn't mean I don't want to take their opinion into account. Since we're a tighter group, I think we can handle it differently than we currently do
        • Are you uncomfortable with the SP even coming to you?
          • No. I think SPs are important in the process, the problem I see is the situation where you've been working with a person and you want them to succeed. That may impact the review
        • If we want to have a fair and open review process, the SPs should be limited to advice
        • With the change of landscape and focus on non-traditional domains and different kinds of systems, that there is a shift in the rubric we use to do these reviews. We may need to communicate this more clearly. What is the rubric and do we need to take into account some of this background and where people are coming from and how we go about the review process? 
      • Some of the example proposals are outdated
        • Need to take this up with allocations
  • ECSS Symposium
    • Bob is always looking for presenters! Please consider doing a presentation
  • ECSS Campus Champion Fellows
    • There will be e-mails coming out looking for your interest to serve as a fellows mentor

 

  • No labels