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
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
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
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
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’’.