Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendees:

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)

Agenda/Notes

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


2. XSEDE2 Reporting (Leslie Froeschl

Previously:

  • Previous discussion archived: SMT Meeting - September 10, 2020
  • (9/24) No update
  • (10/8): IPR13 coming up starting first week of November. L3 text will be due 11/3 and L2 text 11/5. Please try to be on time!
  • (10/22): Reminder about IPR13 (see 10/8 reminder). Risk review went out late yesterday. Please review your risks by 10/31 at the latest. 

Discussion:

(11/5): L2 inputs for IPR13 due today!

  • Linda: difficult discussing some KPIs performance since we don't have in-person training. Do our best work in-person with students & faculty. Feel that we're losing touch with the community. 
    • John: Best we can do is just interpret what is going on as best we can. Will add note to summary about impacts of COVID19 on outreach efforts & other in-person efforts. Ok to qualify that we're speculating because we don't have experience in this space. Talk about strategies we're taking: how much we're doing virtual, assessment of virtual events/contacts. 
    • Trying think about strategies & mentioned that in report response. 
    • Kelly: some things have been surprisingly positive (esp student programs), but exhibiting is really difficult. Taking a toll on staff. 
    • Students in current programs were recruited last year. Now we should be recruiting for the rest of the plan year. Getting word of mouth from existing/past participants, but recruiting pipeline is 6-12 mos and we're not filling it. 
    • Some universities have stopped travel through May already.


Decisions:


3. Terminology Task Force (Linda Akli

Previously:

  • Previous discussion archived at SMT Meeting - September 24, 2020
  • (10/12) Re-added to agenda
  • (10/22) List is being sent out by email. Look at the list and provide any feedback (anything should be added/removed). Include source of where you identified that as a problematic term. Based on this list the team will start cleaning up website etc.
    • "White paper" is a term on the list. "Position paper" is a better option
    • Susan & team has done a great job!

Discussion:

  • Thank you for input/comments. Task force is going back through spreadsheet to add column on context. Want to order terms to make sure those that would be most likely used by XSEDE appear at the top. Should bring back to SMT and then will lay out a plan for going through content to clean up terminology as needed. 

Decisions:


4. Approval of Texas A&M and Johns Hopkins as L2 Service Providers (Ron Payne

Previously:

  • (11/5) Added to agenda

Discussion:

  • Texas A&M
    • 30% of resources being offered. 30% of "what": How much CPU/GPU time, storage etc. 
    • 180 nodes, not sure how many CPU/GPU. Should be the right size to bring on board.
    • Will ask them to clarify on this with an updated letter, and then will likely approve.  
  • Johns Hopkins
    • Looks good. 
    • Might be good to include info about their MRI in their letter. 
    • 20% of resources=30 million core hours. 
  • Yes: Phil, Kelly, Greg, Dave H, John, Bob pending updated letters
  • Tabitha to request this type of info from future providers when sending their application letters.

Decisions:


5. Format of future XAB meetings (John Towns

Previously:

  • (11/5) Added to agenda
  • During the October meeting board members expressed a desire for a change to the format of the XAB meetings to allow them more opportunity to provide feedback instead of having a string of presentations. 

Discussion:

  • Fall into habit of presenting like we do to review panels. Haven't engaged them as effectively as we could. Realize there may not be a lot that we need to ask XAB, but prefer that we spend less time with presenting and more time asking questions. 
  • Skip overview presentation unless we need them to review material we'll be presenting to a panel. Have presentation focused on particular issues we want to get feedback on.
  • Always have a few new members, but everyone else sits through repeat info. Give them slides in advance, briefly summarize, then move to questions.
  • Think about what has happened in the last quarter that we would like feedback on. What has come up recently.
  • This XAB group is very technically & procedurally oriented. Cliff could go across all levels & knew how to get you to think. 
  • It is competitive to get onto the XAB. They have some responsibility to generate questions.
  • Rudi wasn't there–could have been different if he was.
  • Need to be more focused on what we need feedback on. 
  • Would be useful to spend one of the SMT calls preparing for XAB collectively. Brainstorm collective group of questions instead of take the L2-focus for the presentations.
  • Other advisory boards receive a pile of reading before we meet, including quarterly report. Rest of meeting focuses on target questions that the board discusses. Projects of this scale generate a lot of info, so generating questions for the board to work through is helpful. 
  • Like to understand why people choose to serve on the XAB. What do you think your role is, how you could do your role better, why  you chose to run & why you accepted nomination. Could do mini-survey.
  • What is XAB here for–to pat leaders on the back? If you want them to pick over presentation, then say that. Seemed like people just wanted a pat on the back & nothing for the board to do.   
  • Getting away from L2 focus is a good idea. Board loses interest by the time we get to the last couple presenters. 
  • Don't need to have a 4-hour meeting for the sake of a 4-hour meeting. Think about what we need feedback on and design the meeting around that. 
  • Don't have to wait til the next meeting to engage them. 
  • Board members do need foundational level of understanding in order to answer questions. Onboarding doesn't need to be part of the actual meeting though. 
  • Orientation video was well-received. May want to provide that and offer a Q&A session to give them the opportunity to ask questions & clarify understanding. 
  • Could have subset of board that questions are addressed to. Direct questions at people who are best able to answer them. 
    • Board isn't designed this way, but good to think about this for the future. 
    • This would be difficult to do since we do an open call for candidates vs. inviting particular people. 
    • Could develop competency matrix & indicate what areas we're looking to fill. That can be emphasized in the call. 
  • If we put an issue on the table, should provide info related to that in advance. Could include excerpt from recent IPR (not full IPR). 
  • How we communicate impact is an important question that could be standing discussion question.

Decisions:

  • Better onboarding
  • Better preparation before each XAB meeting
  • Using XAB in between meetings for questions is appropriate with understanding that not all members will respond.  
  • CEE to provide info and questions in advance of Dec call re. recruitment pipeline.


6. Linking XACCT to JIRA so that ECSS allocations are automatically registered/updated (Sergiu Sanielevici  ) 

Previously:

  • (11/5) Added to agenda 

Discussion:

  • Currently manual step to transfer info for allocations to Jira where we track things. How much work to automate this? Do we want to do this? 
    • Main question is who has software development capability to do this if ECSS doesn't have that functionality. Some utility has to be built to call Aimee API to Jira. Not sure what that involves (Rob Light might have an idea of what would be involved).
    • Would be interesting to explore 
    • Impact of not having this is lag in communication from allocation to ECSS. Would be real benefit to staff and users.
    • Bob: Jay Alameda, Marques, Lonnie might have skills to do, but don't know if they have the time.  John: we have the time, but how do we allocate it? Staff resources exist but are allocated elsewhere. Need to determine what the priority is.  
    • Good to run through JP's UREP process to prioritize. Folks from RACD might work together to implement. UREP process might be heavy. RAS would support expertise needed to integrate with allocations system.  
    • At least worthwhile to determine what needs to happen, what effort would be, who might do it...
    • How many allocations are currently being manually transferred? 80-100/year. 
    • Staffing via a PIF or adjusting other work also makes sense, but probably after the scope of work is estimated.

    • Interim step while RACD assesses? Maybe lightweight enough that we don't need an interim solution.

Decisions:

  • Phil to discuss with Rob. If needed, pull in RACD/JP. Can come back to SMT for prioritization if needed. 

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) - 
    • Discussed posting preliminary transition plan with Bob. Asked who stakeholders are that they're concerned about. Asked if this is normal as we haven't seen other transition plans publicly posted. What is precedent for this? Concern that a competitor would then have an advantage of seeing what we would propose in response to solicitation. 
      • Bob deferred question to a future conversation. This may be groundwork for solicitation that may be coming out soon. 
      • Up to us how informative we want to be. Could avoid including any info that we perceive as sensitive.
      • Transitioning is typically done after there is a winner. Not during competitive phase. Shouldn't give any competitive edge away.
      • RAS has done a lot to document, package software, etc. Have made it easy to transition these things, which are open source anyway. 
      • Not sure who gets data if there is a multi-award, who is responsible for collecting data going forward.
      • We know that certain things are very important going forward. Not everyone knows this. By documenting this, we give something away. 
      • Could be a bullet in the solicitation asking proposers to state how they will interface with XSEDE's transition plan.
      • John has a call with Manish on 11/30, so will ask him about this. 
      • Questions John has heard in the community is not about ability of XSEDE to transition services, but whether there will be a transition and when/if a solicitation will be issued to community. 
    • Asked about adding a couple more diverse candidates to XAB
      • Tentative ok to do this, but will need to change cooperative agreement to increase XAB by 2 people. Need to figure out process.
      • Need to figure out how to develop additional set of nominees. Can make clear we're seeking diversity.
      • Have an internal list of names & can request other candidates
      • Can pull in missing competencies of outreach/diversity/equity/inclusion. Diversity in competencies.

    Meeting time expired at this point. 

  • Tim
    • Not present
  • CEE (Kelly) - 
  • ECSS (Bob S/Phil/Sergiu) -
  • XCI (Dave L/Rich) -  

  • Ops (Greg/Victor) -   
  • RAS (Dave H/Ken/Nathan) -  

  • Program Office (Ron/Leslie) - 
  • SP Forum (Ruth) -  

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


Next Meeting:     SMT - November 19, 2020


  • No labels