# Spring 2017 Review Benoît PILORGET 1st Reporting period from Sept. 2015 to February 2017 - Location: Brussels - Dates: 26th April 2017 (preceded by two days of rehearsals and meetings) See also the [README](https://github.com/OpenDreamKit/OpenDreamKit/#organization-of-official-meetings) --- ## Tentative agenda - Day 1: Mock presentations Just like for the review but without Reviewers - Day 2: Project meetings Steering Committe, Quality Review Board, ... - Day 3: Official Review - Coding sprints may be added to that -- ## Tentative agenda for the official review - Presence: - WP leaders + Coordinator + project manager - At least one representative per site - Tentative agenda: - Welcome and tour de table - General introduction by the coordinator - Presentations of deliverables by workpackage: - WP leader presenting + if necessary deliverable leaders - Duration per WP: depending of the amount of content to present -- - Presentation on dissemination, management, and use of resources - Discussion among the reviewers - Brief assessment by the reviewers --- ## Advice for WP & Deliv. presentations Presentations during the review should contain: - In a slide presentation - State of the art at beginning of project for the Work Package - Short and striking story about the relevance and goal of the deliverable - Give involved partners, estimate resources used (i.e. number of PMs if possible) and how much ODK helped to this result -- - In the most appropriate format - What was achieved, by ODK / by the community - Brief description of current activities, future outcomes and plans - Any reference to the Proposal is welcome (graphs, WP or deliverable descriptions etc.) --- ## General advice - You don't have to answer general/administrative questions Ex: for a question concerning the methodology of an institution, a lab can send the question to the relevant institution administration - If you are not certain of the answer, do not hesitate to request time to give clarification --- ## Grades The Consortium will be graded according to this scale: - 4/4: Excellent progress (objectives and technical goals for the period fully achieved and even exceeded expectations) - 3/4: Good progress (most of objectives and technical goals achieved for the period with relatively minor deviations) - 2/4: Acceptable progress (some of its objectives achieved; however, corrective action will be required) - 1/4: Unsatisfactory progress (the project has failed to achieve key objectives and/or is not at all on schedule) = project is cancelled --- ## Periodic Reports - Periodic technical report (coordination team) - starting point: D1.3's report - fleshed up to 2-3 pages per work package, typically by giving a longer description of the deliverables - Goal: give an exhaustive and concise sum up of the 1st Reporting Period results - Periodic financial report (UPSud finance department and other admins) -- - Deadline: - Officially 60 days after the 28/02/2017 - BUT will have to be over for the Review