Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Tuesday, 12/15 – 2pm-3pm ET | 1pm-2pm CT |  12pm-1pm MT | 11am-12pm PT

Executive Summary of Meeting

Attendees:

NAME
PRESENT (tick)/(error)
XAB Members
Lisa Arafune(tick)
Leah Bendavid(tick)
Ken Bloom(tick)
Elizabeth Cherry(error)
Peter Couvares(error)
Rudi Eigenmann(tick)
Brook Milligan(tick)
Russel Poldrack(tick)
Jennifer Schopf(tick)
Ani Ural(tick)
Service Provider Forum
(error)
(tick)
David Hancock(tick)
User Advisory Committee
(tick)
XSEDE Leadership
(tick)
(tick)
(tick)
(error)
(tick)
(error)

(tick)

(tick)
(tick)
(tick)
(tick)
(tick)
(error)

Agenda

Time (EDT)DurationItem w/ Notes (presentation materials linked)Lead
2:00 PM EDT

10 mins

Welcome

Approval of meeting summary from October meeting (sent by email)

Approved (motion by Jonathon, Jennifer).

Lisa Arafune
2:10 PM EDT45 mins
Update on Draft Transition Plan
  • Will post to the XSEDE website. Will not create a separate page. Project has a page for all project documents (engineering docs, plans, reports, etc.). Will add draft transition plan to that page.
  • Will provide preliminary language that states the doc will be available in late January. Including disclaimer that the plan will include a statement that things will be made available but no expectation about whether they should all be transitioned or not.
  • Project will provide detailed transition plan before end of project. If we aren't informed who the awardee(s) is then, we won't have staff available to assist with transition.
  • Here is what we got, use it as you want. Your own decision about whether components should be transitioned.
    • Jennifer: any feedback re. who audience is?
      • John: no feedback from NSF on this. Suspect that the solicitation will suggest that they look at the current project/plans so proposers are aware of what we have available.
    • User Advisory Committee met Monday: no substantive comments/guidance related to this.
  • Rudi: Once you have written transition plan, someone should look over it. If I were a proposer, I might also want this or that. XAB and/or UAC could provide that.
    • John: Could add a week to schedule for UAC & XAB to provide feedback. But this would lengthen the timeline which isn't ideal.
    • Brook: Like balance you have struck. Not clear what role we would play. Not trying to tell alternate proposers what to do (nor is that appropriate). What advice would we give about the doc?
    • Rudi: Those who propose could ask questions.
      • Jennifer: Anyone proposing can ask NSF questions.
      • John: Anyone asking a question about the doc would like be considering proposing. NSF can anonymize questions and send to XSEDE to be answered.
  • John: Would members of XAB be willing to look at the doc and provide feedback
    • Rudi, Brook, Jennifer, Emre – will be built into schedule.
    • Don't want to give away secret sauce
    • John: Have we presented what we have in a way a potential proposer can understand what is available and how it might be used. They determine how useful it is, effort required in transition. Can't promise whether any components would be useful to a proposer.

Project Level Topics

  • Discussion in last meeting to alter format for future meetings. Leadership discussed and will bringing forward specific topics for XAB feedback in the future, especially related to PY11 program planning.


John Towns
2:55 PM EDT5 mins

Final questions/comments

Next meeting: February 9, 2021; 2pm ET (1CT/12MT/11PT). Please respond to Doodle poll for other 2021 meetings if you haven't already.

Adjourn (motion to adjorn: John, Emre)

 

 

 

  • No labels