Join Skype Meeting

-  or   -

Join by phone

+1 217 332 6338 (Champaign-Urbana)

+1 312 994 8410 (Chicago)  

+1 888 983 3631 (U.S. Toll Free)  


Conference ID: 3189605#



XSEDE Advisory Board

Service Provider Forum

User Advisory Committe


Program and Project Manangers


Welcome and discussion of the process NSF plans to use during the next round of re-competition of XSEDEJohn Towns
  • Lessons Learned from TeraGrid seem to have been lost by NSF

  • NSF process constructed that the awards being made are smaller in size
  • How do we advocate for what we've got without sounding self-serving?
  • Dave Lifka - difficult to justify a large project to congress
  • Albert Lazzarini - could it be that NSF is reflecting what they are hearing from the community?
  • Ralph - if you want to recompete XSEDE, it would be difficult for another team to put something together. Bank being too big to fail; therefore break it up so the competition is manageble. There are very severe consequences. What was missing in TeraGrid was central communication.
  • Cliff - don't buy the argument for large award. Therefore, what is the best approach? Attitude you should have: we are in a good position to provide computational capability to the community, we think there are multiple approaches. Present the options for going forward in a small report, stating that the current situation is a good situation. NSF doesn't know what it wants, but it knows its pressure. Providing a report gives thoughtful community input. Acting as an agent for NSF.
  • Karin - responsibillty as the XAB to perhaps provide this report.
  • John - TeraGrid Futures had community input, NSF largely didnt' listen to the recommendations
  • Cliff - NSF is reorganizing again.
  • John - Rudi's term will be up in June an do not yet know who the new program officer will be
  • Nancy - could we pitch it as we are not the only institutions who can, but we could present it as this is the best structure to move forward
  • Cliff - help NSF achieve its goals through a set of options
  • Shaowen - time is ripe for a more defined process and structure for digital infrastructure; for example, NCAR getting sustained support. Solid community structure perceived as objective and representative. While the XSEDE work is phenomenal, it is to a degree ad hoc–how can we establish a structure for a long-term vision for the community.
  • John - NCAR is an FFRDC the funding threshold for MREFC has changed and is now at $70M. Not advocating that XSEDE become an MREFC
  • Cliff - value in FFRDC, but it is a cultural issue. We could achieve much more with the building infrastructures than with individual grants.
  • Dan - matching risk profile to budget and managing budget, kicks in at $50M
  • Ralph - XAB approach the ACI board to think of alternatives
  • Cliff - we would have to have OCI bring it to NSF's attention, not sure OCI would do it
  • Albert - program advisory committee selects and advises and has no relationship with NSF. XSEDE management could formally ask for XAB feedback and share feedback with NSF
  • John - it has to fall back to a process NSF is comfortable with. Recommendations from us and the community to NSF, but XSEDE wouldn't be driving it.
  • Cliff - ask NSF their vision 10 years from now as a foundation
  • Shaowen - long-term vision answer might be to ask community input
  • Karin - workshop for community to come up with vision
  • Cliff - we want to figure out how to engage them. Thom Dunning working to respond to larger reports, there might be kernels of information that feeds into the recommendations.
  • John - haven't been engaged in that process, concnered they don't want XSEDE involved
  • Shawn - between the broader community and the XSEDE community is the user community–how do we engage that community?
  • John - planning grant exercise
  • Shawn - plenary town hall session at SC17 asking for feedback
  • John - have done similar exercises. Challenge, SC is appropriate, but XSEDE is broader than SC.
  • Shawn - do how to you reach 80% of your users?
  • John - user surveys, focus group discussions. Holding several town hall meetings over the course of a year or more.
  • Cliff - focus on the science. OCI will be receptive to a long-term strategy gathered at Science conferences as a way to accelerate discovery in particular domains
  • Ralph - when the original XSEDE grant was made, it was stated that it could be renewed without a public competition; that is what they removed this time
  • Shawn - how could the characteristics of what XSEDE provides vs. what XSEDE should provide conflate the issue
  • Ralph - most would say we have a lack of resources
  • Tom - could re-compete subsets
    • Program office
    • Operations
    • XRAS
    • CEE
    • ECSS
    • XCI
  • John - requirements for success. Because we don't have independent PIs, they don't behave in the best interest of them–they work collectively toward what is best for the program as a whole. The reach of XSEDE should be broader, NSF felt XSEDE is the core. Concern is fracturing the core.
  • Ralph - the L2 areas were decided by NSF for XSEDE2. Different than XSEDE1
  • John - XSEDE is flexible to change, but an award structure creates a certain set of permanence. Have to deliberatly change through a process. We will be coming back to this issue. Clear that more concrete plans are needed for NSF. Going in a direction that XSEDE agrees with and figuring out how to address that.
  • Cliff - success you've had should allow playing a role in defining the future going forward

Presentation Materials

Action items