Coordinator deputy

It was decided to have a coordinator deputy that would be kept constantly updated by the coordinator and manager on the project evolution, in order to be able to temporarily take over the coordination in case the coordinator would be incapacitated.

Steve Linton was nominated

Committees

Coordination team

Composition: as originaly planned: Coordinator + WP leaders

• WP 1: Nicolas M. Thiéry / Benoît Pilorget
• WP 2: Viviane Pons
• WP 3: Luca De Feo
• WP 4: Min Ragan-Kelley (Simula)
• WP 5: Clément Pernet
• WP 6: Michael Kohlhase
• WP 7: Dmitrii Pasechnik

Steering committee

Meets twice a year, with one of the meeting bringing physically together as many of the members

Composition: as originaly planned: Coordinator + site leaders

• Grenoble: Clement.Pernet
• Oxford: Dima Pasechnik
• Southampton: Hans Fangohr
• Simula: Martin Sandve Alnæs
• Warwick: John Cremona
• UVSQ: Luca De Feo
• Silesia: Marcin Kostur
• Bremen: Michael Kohlhase
• Sheffield: Neil Lawrence
• Zürich: Paul-Olivier Dehaye
• St Andrews: Steve.Linton
• Bordeaux: Vincent Delecroix?
• Orsay: Viviane Pons
• Kaiserslautern: Wolfram Decker
• Logilab: Florent Cayré
• Coordinator: Nicolas M. Thiéry

Advisory board / End User Group

Chair?

Meets at least once a year

It was felt that there was some redundancy with those two body which would impose unnecessary management work (meeting organisation, …). It was decided to slightly modify the management structure by having only one advisory board composed of 6 to 8 people, some of which would be end users. The end user group will be replaced by an informal community, modelled by a public and open mailing list.

Names were suggested for the advisory board.

Quality Review Board

Get noticed whenever a deliverable is submitted.

Meet at end of reporting periods

Hans Fangohr was nominated to chair the Quality Review Board.

Composition: as planned

Voting rules

It was decided upon the following voting rules

• ``Easy questions’’: 2/3 of represented members, with quorum = 2/3 of the whole set of members
• ``Hard questions’’: 3/4 of represented members, with quorum = 3/4 of the whole set of members

Electronic vote are allowed, typically using adoodle.org

Definition of hard questions:

• Large changes to the budget (>= 100k euros?)
• Evolution to the consortium (as listed on the slide)
• Firing the coordinator
• Resolving ambiguity about whether something is a hard question

Everything else – including choosing a new coordinator in case of incapacity – is considered ``easy’’.