Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Wed, 12/11 – 12-1pm ET | 11am-12pm CT |  10-11am MT | 9-10am PT

Executive Summary of Meeting


PRESENT (tick)/(error)
XAB Members
Lisa Arafune(error)
Leah Bendavid(tick)
Ken Bloom(tick)
Randy Bryant(tick)
Thomas Cheatham(error)
Elizabeth Cherry(tick)
Toni Collis(error)
Peter Couvares(tick)
Rudi Eigenmann(tick)
Ani Ural(tick)
Service Provider Forum
David Hancock(tick)
User Advisory Committee
XSEDE Leadership


Linda Akli(tick)


Time (EDT)DurationItem w/ Notes (presentation materials linked)Lead
12:00 PM EST

10 mins


Approval of December XAB Meeting Summary

  • Approved.
John Towns
12:10 PM EST45 mins
  • Topic requested by Rudi: XSEDE's understanding of the post-XSEDE2 preparation process and any communication that has happened, or is planned, with NSF
  • Update on XSEDE Response to NSF Blueprint documents and NSF 20-015 RFI
    • NSF DCL/RFI 20-015 (Data-Focused Cyberinfrastructure) SUBMITTED Monday 12/16
    • OAC Blueprint: Coordination Services SUBMITTED Monday 2/3 (emailed to XAB yesterday)
      • Rudi: Projects will be on their own to propose coordination mechanism. How could you create something so good that the community gets behind it instead of having NSF dictate how the coordination should happen.
      • JT: Umbrella under which coordination falls
      • Rudi: Internet2 does community forums. Could the successor do something similar to bring people together to discuss good model for coordination. Get momentum so that coordination becomes highly desired by community.
      • JT: Surprised the blueprint didn't have more to this effect & was silent about this. Wireless research effort model is interesting; funded program office to provide coordination function even though wireless research testbeds were funded separately. Would think others commented on this.
      • Don't have solicitation, but this blueprint is the best hint at what that might look like. Not clear if the coordination services blueprint doc will turn into solicitation. Nothing to specifically support coordination. Does that mean we do that on our own/fund on our own?
        • Rudi: would be good to propose a mechanism /meeting series that the community would engage in and discuss coordination.
        • JT: Discussing and doing coordination are 2 diff things. Ideally would want all awardees to fund such a meeting. Funding actual coordination is more of a worry.
      • The doc was submitted yesterday. Could submit further recommendations if we wish. Not an official RFI. Encourages feedback but gives no instruction on how to provide that feedback.
      • Emre: didn't see anything missing. Thought it was a reasonable response.
      • If anything missing we could submit additional feedback. If any XAB members feel anything is missing, please send those comments to John. Want to be sure we encourage NSF to put out best solicitation possible.
      • David: ECSS: may have missed whatever comes after needs to support deep integrative support or those highly skilled people will move on to other things. If the pieces are broke up, will lose this. If you lose integration hard to reassemble. Don't want to lose highly skilled people because it's unclear what will come next.
        • Rudi: ECSS insufficiently mentioned in the doc.
      • JT: Believe we'll need an extension to current award given that a solicitation still hasn't come out. If that happens hope that it is handled better than previously. Difficult to write bridge proposal while also working on full proposal.
        • Rudi: Good to anticipate this as a possibility.
      • Ken: a challenge is to articulate value of bundling all the parts of XSEDE. Coordination of the services is a valuable thing in itself & needs to be continued.
      • JT: Coordination we're talking about is coordinating services XSEDE already offers to community. Other services by NSF are not well coordinated. Need to look more closely at this. Reasonably good coordination with OSG, but not as good coordination with others. Should this blueprint address this? Broader implication of the coordination services that should touch other major investments by NSF. Blueprint is restraining to things funded by OAC.
        • Leah: this stood out strongly. Note about coordination with other NSF programs on p. 7 felt like a different flavor than the rest of the doc. Felt like it was slipped in as an afterthought and could have been addressed more deeply.
        • JT: Wanted the point in there. Will follow up with Manish about this and can provide additional text. Didn't want to confuse the argument. What should happen in that space? Big suggestion that all CI services be coordinated in some way. Is that a smart thing to push at? Or is it exactly the right thing?
          • Peter: Think coordination is badly needed. Struggling to learn the contours of how it should happen, but it must happen. Missing opportunity to figure it out would be a mistake.
          • Rudi: Can't imagine NSF will get in a position to mandate too much. Better to come up with mechanism that comes up with community driven coordination. Could suggest that it be a community driven/organized way of coordinating, but that NSF make sure those that step up have the means to enact the coordination.
            • JT: Is that something the community is capable of?
            • Ken: Given existence of bodies like this one, contrasts between this suggestion & others. Currently must be a part of XSEDE.
            • MRSEC: siloed environment for their project. How to go beyond that across projects
            • Peter: LIGO's growing understanding about need to make more conscious decisions about what we build in-house. Don't think the notion that you have to be part of XSEDE is widely held. There are missed opportunities for more shared infrastructure, coordination, conscious & intentional decision making by MRSECs.
        • Do concerns such as these raise to higher level of visibility? Randy: No. We watched national academies report on CI but never got into operational issues such as this. OSTP more about policy. JT: Becomes a science board discussion, but don't know if they discuss these sorts of things?
          • Rudi: Too operational for that level.
          • JT: So who does talk about it? Other than Manish putting out a blueprint doc...
            • Randy: Advisory board for OAC? ACCI is a foundation wide adv board on CI.
              • Ruth: These issues have come up to extent that the report of coordination workshop results were presented. Questions across many dimensions, but that was the extent of those types of issues being on the agenda directly. Have had interactions with some directorates thinking more about smaller projects. Clear needs for info about access to and awareness about types of services XSEDE & others may offer, but nothing concrete has been recommended (based on attendance at 2 meetings).
              • JT: Don't know if charge is specific enough to address these kinds of issues, but could address this be an agenda item in the future. Recommend that Ruth ask that this be a discussion item at a future meeting (likely fall meeting since spring meeting agenda is mostly set).
              • Ruth: NSF program officers likely get a lot of input/ideas, but that is more individual response vs. a larger response.
              • Rudi: Could be a good topic for Large Facilities Workshop. JT: Has become more welcomed as topic of discussion than when initially brought up. Hasn't been a prominent discussion and haven't seen recommendations related to this come out of workshop.
              • Rudi: Takes repeated awareness of importance of topic.
              • JT: Have observed slightly different attendance at the LFW outside of just MRSECs.
              • Rudi: CSSI program--could be a good topic for PI workshop. John isn't CSSI PI so he isn't invited but can find out when it will be held. Not sure if they restrict attendance.
      • Other Blueprint docs that XSEDE will provide a response to in the future:
John Towns
1:00 PM EDT 

Final questions/comments

Next meeting: Onsite in Rosemont, IL:

  • Dinner Monday evening, April 20 6pm
  • Meeting Tuesday, April 21 8am-4pm CT
      • Important step in preparing PY10 program plan.
      • Project will be drafting PY10 plan over next several weeks, identify priorities. Will walk through those plans during April XAB meeting to get XAB feedback.
      • Will go over what we're planning to do during dinner Monday.
      • Tuesday will cover general XAB topics & then walk through L2 area plans.
      • Won't be significant amount of preparation in advance.
      • Will ultimately build toward submitted our annual report & program plan in mid May.
      • Formal NSF review in June.
      • Will have ability to join remotely but participation will be limited.





  • No labels