Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


Canonical Meeting Template (as a reminder):

1. Review of meeting agenda
2. Addressing issues

  • Description/Status of issue
  • Review of action items from previous meetings if any
  • Recommended actions and discussion of same
  • Close issue or identify next action items

3. Status updates from SMT members

  • Status update on significant activities
  • Review of prior open issues if any (and not addressed earlier in agenda)
  • Identification of new issues if any (and not addressed earlier in agenda)


1. Review of Meeting Agenda: Any comments/additions? 

2. XSEDE2 Reporting (Leslie Froeschl


  • Previous discussion archived: SMT Meeting - February 25, 2021
  • (3/25) L3s should be finalizing submission of PY11 planning text to PMs. L2 deadline for final text is next Wednesday 3/31. 
    • Annual report process will start May 1.
  • (4/8) Wrapping up PY11 plan today. 
    • XAB: Friday April 16 10am-1pm CT; Slides due by end of day TODAY (with questions for XAB feedback).  Please place them here:
    • Requested SP Forum volunteers to sign up to review/provide feedback to an L2 of their choosing. Sent reminder today and hope to get at least one reviewer for each L2 area. L2s: please send Leslie a few times you could do a 30-min call with these folks in the next couple weeks. 
    • Annual report process will start May 1. 
  • (4/22) Meetings with SP Forum reps set up for CEE, XCI, Ops. Still working on scheduling ECSS & PgO. No one signed up for RAS. 
    • Annual report process begins May 1. 



3. Fluid Numerics (Ron Payne  ) 


  • (4/8) Added to agenda. Initial discussion indicated concerns about them being a commercial entity. See notes from that discussion at SMT Meeting - February 11, 2021
    • Letter from Fluid Numerics was sent by email on Feb. 5 (Leslie reforwarded to email list today). 
    • Concern about them using as a marketing tool for their services. Need to understand their expectations re. what they would contribute & receive. 
    • Might be interesting to entertain what it would look like to allocate commercial cloud services. Could be partner in exploring that space (understanding there are many risks). 
    • Not clear if what they're offering is at cost or not. They need to understand that our SPs offer their services at no cost.
    • Does this involve any pilot work for XSEDE? We're in process of ramping down, so do we want to spin up a pilot? They didn't propose a pilot.
    • What is an analog to Fluid Numerics? HDF? not formally associated with a university. Feels like a similar type of org. 
    • Affiliate member of COVID consortium, and they've offered their service for free to that. Not sure if they will offer to XSEDE for free as well. 
    • As an L3 they wouldn't need to provide anything. Just need to fill out what they have available. Rules don't say that it has to be only things that are free. Lets the community know it's available. 
    • Should we have special rules for commercial entities? Is there a reason we shouldn't allow a commercial entity to participate? 
      • Don't want them to leverage their SPF position to grow their business/scrape contact info
      • Haven't put constraints on this in our SPF policies re. limitations
      • NSF allowing grants to write these kinds of services into their budgets & expect national allocations process to be able to allocate these kinds of things. Don't see why XSEDE can't start moving towards this. 
      • As long as they understand this is a technical interaction–not a marketing tool for them. As long as they agree to this, we should explore it.
    • Need clarification from Fluid Numerics re. uncertainties. Ron Payneto send request for clarification. 
    • What would they offer to community for no cost? Under what terms/costs would they offer things to the community? 
      • They should describe themselves as a fee-for-service entity if there is some cost associated so people understand. No need to outline price structure.   
    • Be clear we expect them not to use this as a marketing tool. No explicit marketing opportunities here. This is a technical engagement–not marketing opportunity.
    • What value they bring to the community and what they expect to get out of the participation?
    • Decision will be made pending receipt of this clarification. 


  • Response from Fluid Numerics received and sent out to SMT by email.
    • Response isn't clear what is at cost and what is free. Was a wordy response without a clear response. Very marketing-speak.


  • Ron Payne to respond and ask for direct, succinct responses to the questions that were asked. If they don't do that, consider that they were non-responsive to our concerns. 

Around the call up

Follow this basic outline:

  • Status update on significant activities
  • Review of prior open issues if any (and not addressed earlier in agenda)
  • Identification of new issues if any (and not addressed earlier in agenda)
  • Identification of recent improvements implemented

Updates from SMT members:

  • PI (John/Ron) - 
    • Reviewed science stories for annual report. Report coming along nicely. 
    • NSF calls have been short lately. Nothing of note to share. 
    • PY11 budget discussions re. spending down budget by end of that year. Are there scenarios where we might consider a no cost extension to facilitate transition? 
      • John posed this question to Bob given that the ACCESS awards could be made after the end of XSEDE or very close to the end. Not certain if no-cost or costed/supplement extension is possible. Other option could be that we submit a proposal. Response was that we'll see how things unfold and when we get there we'll find a solution. NSF seems unwilling to engage in scenario planning around this at this point. 
      • SMT will be informed about where we're seeing potential for unspent funds so they can make decisions about how to use those. 
      • A lot of uncertainty around various spending given travel restrictions. Need to provide flexibility to adjust as needed. 
      • Having funds available for potential no cost extension could potentially save the day. Hope as we get closer to the end of the project we can make such decisions. Planning for no cost extension would be preferable over writing a supplement proposal. If NSF gets awards in place in a timely fashion a no cost extension may not be needed. Unlikely though that we won't need additional transition time. Awardees may not desire level of transition, but can't let it all drop to the ground. 
      • Will be difficult to make up lost ground in underspend if we wait too long. 
      • Some smaller subs won't have funds left at the end of the award to accommodate a no cost extension.
      • A no cost extension would only apply to parts of the project that we would be transitioning. Need to develop a plan that aligns with expectations for most likely outcome. Need to communicate clearly with any subs/areas of the project that would potentially not be involved in a no cost extension. Subs need guidance from leadership about some things:
        • When we can plan to travel fully again. Agreement to stick with original guidance of Jan. 1, 2022. 
          • Break travel apart--
          • How big can a conference be to maintain social distancing
        • Target spend down to zero by Aug 31, 2022. If there is something else needed we'll deal with it when it comes. Our planning should be what is needed to ensure success of the project. 
    • Terminology task force meeting time confusion. Linda to confirm time and let John know. 
  • Tim
    • Interconnections diagrams–hasn't progressed

  • CEE (Kelly) - 
    • Annual report–first time doing a report without Lorna. May be late. Tonya is working to confirm some of the data. Info about new users & new URM users has some discrepancies that need to be sorted out. 

  • ECSS (Bob S/Phil/Sergiu) -
    • All-hands meeting June 2. Plan to discuss how to maximize time that is left. 

  • XCI (Dave L/Tabitha/Shava) -  

    • Reporting is complete

  • Ops (Greg/Victor) -   
    • Working on reporting, transition planning   
  • RAS (Dave H/Ken/Nathan) -  

    • Allocation policy posted/updated & approved by NSF
    • Work on the next XRAC. 192 submissions going into June meeting.
    • Working with new SPs who are being onboarded 
      • Delta, Rockfish are part of current allocation requests.  
    • RAS spin-down for XSEDE spin down but will plan for non-XSEDE XRAS clients to continue to have access.
    • Last XRAC will be moved up one week.
  • Program Office (Ron/Leslie) - 
  • SP Forum (Ruth) -  

    • No update
  • UAC (Emre) -   
    • No update
  • NSF (Bob C) - 

Next Meeting:     SMT - May 20, 2021 

  • No labels