2016-08-17 Meeting notes

• NSF Review in June 2016 was very positive and have a panel review response
  • ACTION send panel review report to XAB
• Requested Lessons Learned transferrable to other large NSF projects and beyond. Recommendations in report. Draft report already submitted; final report will be submitted in October 2016
• Moving along with approval for XSEDE2 funding reviewed by NSB in May that went very well
• Award currently in Recommended status
• Thank you XAB for feedback on preparations
• Think about the basis for various articles in journals to report on the progess of XSEDE
  • ACTION request XAB guidance on the best way to do this
• Significant financial review for awards over $10M
  • XAB feedback - other institutions have experienced a logistics review in order to prove that they can manage a grant; not done for XSEDE but have completed a full University of Illinois audit. Possibly expected at the end of year 1
• Project Execution Plan and Terms and Conditions are being completed as early as this week.
• Hoping for official notification of award this week or next
• Very long road that has benefited tremendously by XAB input–a key element of the success of our Project and the process for the new award
• Looking forward to launching into the next 5 years
• XAB feedback - it sounds like your group deserves credit for this success as well
• At the end of Kelly Gaither's CEE presentation, the Review Panel gave her a round of applause

Project Improvement Fund

• New feature for XSEDE2 in order to award Project Improvement Funds to enable project activities
• Will be available PY7, PY8, and PY9
• Will use a Phase Gate Approach with a Blind Delphi technique for ranking
  • ACTION be sure to send updated slides to XAB
• See Project Improvement Overview slide
• XAB question - money allocated for proposal-driven improvements within the Project or externally?
  • John - supporting internal changes to the project. Should we allow others to partner with others for this effort? If we fund others outside the project, we would have to pay overhead for that, but am willing to consider that; $14k per institution
• See slide showing funnel and Phases
  • XAB feedback - good way to balance NSF requests by engaging program officers on how to allocate some of the money to benefit the community. Helps to mitigate the large award competition in the community.
  • The phase process is linear, but the readiness of the ideas have to be evaluated continually. A later idea may be more beneficial and become elevated in the priorities–don't see capability to account for losing an idea later on
  • XAB feedback - revisit "unused" ideas; it is missing how ideas turn into reality. Having a cycle in diagram would help express the feedback loop in order to recycle unused ideas
  • John - constraint over the process is that we are not allowed to do "development" unless very specifically an XSEDE need in order to prevent circumventing the NSF review process. Looking for ways to help solidify how we do this and still address XSEDE needs that do NOT have broader applicability to the community. Want to make sure that we balance having an appropriate process without a lot of overhead. If a lot of effort is required to manage the process
  • XAB feedback - how many projects per year can you manage?
  • John - more of a budget issue: $458k per year.
  • XAB feedback - who can submit ideas and how will they know?
  • John - internal submissions looking toward those who already have funding arrangements so that we do not induce additional overhead. However, there are those on the project who bring value. We cannot look like a funding agency.
  • XAB feedback - you haven't excluded anyone, so understand where best ideas will be coming from; perhaps collaborations are the best ideas
  • XAB feedback - what if you have an excellent idea that you can't afford?
  • John - look for opportunities against open program at NSF or as an unsolicited proposal. It is likely many suggestions could be obtained through independent grant funds. Would have liked to have funded the redevelopment of the allocations system: XRAC.
• PIFP Weighted Assessment slide
  • XAB feedback on "Program Office" and need to make sure that is not confused with Program Office from NSF
  • NSF will have to sign off on the award process
  • XAB feedback - will NSF have to sign off on projects?
  • John - if we move budget between different categories, we have to get Program Officer approval on changes
  • Supplement or re-programming?
  • John - this is unallocated money from NSF that is already awarded
  • Bullets on the front need to not be ambiguous
  • Dynamics with NSF and mission critical tasks are not reviewed well and don't get funded. Request it be funded through cooperative agreement. Wondering to what degree you have to be concerned with NSF's view of these projects. Need to think about how to be very clear with the wording
  • XSEDE would be just paying for a portion of the resource, need to work that out in the language with NSF. Don't want to upset NSF
  • Need to be able to review and not have a manual process

XAB Expectations

• Will need to appoint an XAB Chairperson to develop agendas, drive the discussion, and aid in creating a formal summary after each meeting
• XAB feedback - chairperson is important as well as a formal written report
• XAB feedback - John does an excellent job chairing
• XAB feedback - thank you for staff contributions
• John - thank you Ron and Laura

NSCI and XSEDE's Role

• http://www.nsf.gov/cise/nsci/
• https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/NSCI%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf

• Tabled for next XAB meeting