Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

 

Discussion:

  • (2/1) Craig -  

Decisions:

Actions:

  • For the KB there are two rational options going forward:

    • Option 1: Pay for a person to update information, seek information proactively, and edit/ monitor content at a total cost (direct and indirect expenses) estimated at $37,500 per year, with person reporting directly to Stewart at IU
    • Option 2: Eliminate use of the KB
    • Hopefully the unhappiness with lack of updates indicates the value of the KB; Stewart can prepare a PCR by the end of the day Monday next week, given a statement of interest of receiving a request

5. New XSEDE KPI Set (Lizanne DeStefanoRon Payne

Previously:

  • Last SMT review (Dec. 2017) resulted in follow-up items that needed to be addressed prior to approving the new KPI set
  • (1/18) All open action items from Quarterly meeting review have been addressed and closed.
  • (1/18) Discussion about approving new KPI set
  • (1/25) Karla - please send KPI set for review

Discussion:

...

  • get someone who is a good writer .25 to .50 to restore the KB as an excellent resource, reporting to me to work together on. Or could turn it off. 
  • J Ray - could be a topic on UREP for an environmental impact statement of support
  • Dave H - where would the money come from? PCR would have to take money from someplace else. I would be disinclined to fund because there is a no-cost solution
  • Nancy - User Engagement? PIF? Hit statistics compared to regular documentation; could content be duplicated?
  • John - it comes back to the SMT one way or the other. What would the consequences be to shut it off?

Decisions:


Actions:

  • For the KB there are two rational options going forward:

    • Option 1: Pay for a person to update information, seek information proactively, and edit/ monitor content at a total cost (direct and indirect expenses) estimated at $37,500 per year, with person reporting directly to Stewart at IU
    • Option 2: Eliminate use of the KB
    • Hopefully the unhappiness with lack of updates indicates the value of the KB; Stewart can prepare a PCR by the end of the day Monday next week, given a statement of interest of receiving a request



5. New XSEDE KPI Set (Lizanne DeStefanoRon Payne

Previously:

  • Last SMT review (Dec. 2017) resulted in follow-up items that needed to be addressed prior to approving the new KPI set
  • (1/18) All open action items from Quarterly meeting review have been addressed and closed.
  • (1/18) Discussion about approving new KPI set
  • (1/25) Karla - please send KPI set for review

Discussion:

  • (2/1) Ron - have gotten some feedback on final KPI set
  • Lizanne - sustained user definition from Dave, chose the one that was most consistent. 
  • Dave - sustained user definition thin
  • Sergiu - drop ECSS from this. Usage vs. users on portal. We are measuring who is using resources not portal
  • John - user of XSEDE services often don't use a compute resource
  • Karla - CEE is based on a portal account, ECSS is based on allocation. User on each case is defined differently. You can have a portal ID and not have a project or allocation. ECSS or NIP is looking at allocation usage. Number of new users and sustained users taken a step further. Sustained user = at least 10% usage on an allocation on a machine
  • Lizanne - all sustained users is a project-wide metric
  • John - suggestion to use different terminology to avoid confusion
  • Lizanne - use the 10% metric as an L2 metric
  • Sergiu - if the project-wide metric is for portal only, then you are set
  • Phil - wording of non-traditional disciplines. Running jobs via an allocation vs. portal usage
  • Karla - CEE and ECSS are separate, the issue is...line 3 and line 12–when you go into the description and definition, NIP on line 12–the portal isn't how NIP defines a user
  • Lizanne - in some areas, allocation is a good indicator of usage. Some users of XSEDE do not have an allocation. Having 2 definitions was confusion. All of those engage compared to those who come back
  • Karla - 2 NIP ones using the same definition of a user that is different
  • Lizanne - then perhaps we need to use different terminology as John suggests
  • Sergiu - how many portal users were from certain domains
  • John - consistent with the broader definition of user. ECSS has defined user differently. If we want to use a broader definition, they may have an alternate metric called, Allocation Users, for example. Not segmenting user community. If the primary owner is CEE, it does induce an L2 KPI for ECSS or a pair of them
  • Karla - Implemented in RY3 in May
  • Nancy - remove the non-traditional
  • Dave - the definition of sustained is to create an account and do something in another reporting period...very low bar. Propose to having activities after creation
  • Lizanne - CEE and training want a definition that captures many of their users

Decisions:

  • note

Actions:



6. UREP Prioritization Results for January 2018 (David Lifka)

Previously:

  • Added to agenda 29-Jan.; email from XCI with the same subject as topic title sent to leadership team on 29-Jan.

Discussion:

  • note

Decisions:

  • note

Actions:



Status updates

...