Minutes for the meeting of the OpenDreamKit Steering Commitee on the 26th of January 2016
The meeting was held at the University of St Andrews, at the occasion of the WP6 meeting Knowledge representation in mathematical software and databases
Were physically present:
- John Cremona (JC): University of Warwick
- Luca di Feo (LDF): Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin
- Paul-Olivier Dehaye (POD): Universität Zürich
- Steven Linton (SL): University of St Andrews
- Ursula Martin (UM): University of Oxford
- Viviane Pons (VP): Université Paris Sud
- Nicolas M. Thiéry (NT): Coordinator
- Michael Kohlhase (MK): Jacobs University Bremen
- Benoit Pilorget (BP): Project manager
Were able to participate remotely via hubl.in:
- Hans Fangohr (HF): University of Southampton
- Clément Pernet (CP): Université Joseph Fourier
- Martin Alnæs (MA): Simula Research Laboratory
Neil Lawrence (NL: University of Sheffield), Wolfram Decker (WD: University of Kaiserslautern), Dima Pasechnik (DP, University of Oxford), Marcin Kostur (University of Silesia), and Florent Cayré (FC, Logilab) also attempted to participate; however the sound quality was too low for them to follow the live discussion.
We used a pad on framapad to edit collaboratively the minutes, and a chat on gitter for coordination and interactions with remote participants.
Partners not present were contacted during the day of the 26/01/2016 for their votes.
After the meeting it was discussed how to better organize future meetings to avoid the technical difficulties. See the recommendations for organizing official meetings in our instructions for participants.
Adoption of final Consortium Agreement (CA)
BP announces that the CA is only missing the signature of the CNRS, and that this should be resolved soon (update on 04/02/2016: resolved).
BP presents the consortium agreement
Consortium bodies (p. 5; correction by HF to the meeting dates for Quality Review Board; validated by the committee: the board meets after each reporting period, not before. It REVIEWS deliverables after they have been delivered, and then we try to learn from that for the next set of deliverables).
- Deadlines to organize meetings (p. 6), quorum rules
- Minutes of meetings p. 8
- Role of advisory board and quality review board p. 11
Brief progress reports for all sites
- Université Paris Sud
- Jacobs University Bremen
- Université Joseph Fourier
- University of Kaiserslautern
- University of Silesia
- University of Sheffield
- University of Southampton
- University of St Andrews
- Université Versailles Saint-Quentin
- University of Warwick
- Universität Zürich
- Simula Research Laboratory
Comments and discussions:
MK: suggestion to add the “Database of strongly regular graphs” to WP6 would be a great idea. DP: ok. POD: the best way to integrate this is to create a GitHub issue for that, and to ask you to complete a survey.
HF: For D3.1, it would be good to include micromagnetic virtual images/containers, or at least make sure that best practice is follewed either way. I have a student in Southampton who is interested in that. Who would be a good person for him to get in touch with? (@mvousden)
LDF: I’ll expand D3.1 to contain anything containerized; please, put @mvousden in contact with me through OpenDreamKit/OpenDreamKit#58
Zürich partner situation (PO Dehaye position at the University)
POD: My contract as Assistant Professor at the University of Zürich ends August 31st 2016. OpenDreamKit has 12(+1) person months planned specifically for my salary months 12-24 (so it starts exactly when my regular contract ends). Zürich is part of WP6, to lead one task ending early, and helping up to month 24. I am the only ODK participant in Zürich.
Potential problem: Zürich says they require PIs to be professors, and it may not be possible to nominally extend my Assistant Professorship even though the money is available, in which case they would not be able to host me between months 12 and 24.
MK: an option might be for Bremen to host POD. In which case the money would need to be transferred from UZH to JacobsUni. Of course this requires a negotiation between ODK, UZH, and Bremen.
After discussion and vote, the Steering Committee agreed on the following:
POD’s work is essential to the good process of OpenDreamKit; they need to find a way to keep POD in the consortium for months 12-24.
Without POD there, Zürich would not be able to fulfill its ODK duties and would need to be shut down as an ODK partner.
The SC gives the ability to the coordinator NT, POD, and MK to explore together the various options to try to keep POD among the consortium. In particular, the coordinator NT will get in touch with UZH (done). The administrative aspects will be investigated by BP with the UPSud administration and European affair services.
Expressed votes: JC, LDF, POD, SL, UM, VP, NT, MK, HF, CP, MA, FC; all positive.
SL is in charge of setting up the advisory board.
Here is the preliminary list of potential members, initiated at the Kickoff and expanded upon since them. Participants are welcome to submit more names to the above list, and specify whom they would feel comfortable contacting.
SL will send information soon to all partners to coordinate the action, in particular for splitting the contacting work.
Quality review Board
The quality review board will review the way the deliverables have been produced; with the aim of identifying good practice and weaknesses, and to share the lessons with the project to improve any future project work. The board will focus on selected deliverables and investigate those in detail rather than attempting a superficial inspection of all deliverables.
According to HF, four members are already part of this board. A fifth member would be welcome but not necessary.
Deliverables submitted and next ones to come
See the status reports for the already submitted deliverables.
The slides contain deliverables due for June 2016.
UPSud asks to postpone “D3.2 Understand and document SageMathCloud backend code” to M18 due to the delay encountered in recruiting the engineers.
Data Management plan (DMP)
BP encouraged sites to complete the DMP with their own data information. They can find help by looking at what other partnes have written for their own data. For the first version of this DMP, only simple short information is required.
MK: for the long run, and as a project, OpenDreamKit should have a fundamental discussion on data. This includes in particular a definition of the Data / Knowledge / Software and their relations/unseparability in maths. The results of this discussion could be included as a preamble in one of the later data management plan documents.
The SC agrees that for the first version the information already available is fully sufficient. The fundamental discussion can be made for the second version of the DMP.
BP: short reminder (p.20) on publication recommendations.
TODO: copy the publication recommendation information to our main README.
Finance and administrative issues/questions from partners
BP announced that UPSud will be leading an intern financial evaluation at the mid-term of the 1st reporting period (around May 2016). This is planned in order to correct some possible mistakes before the official check.
Organization of meetings
Yearly project meetings
JacobsUni proposed to host the 1st yearly OpenDreamKit workshop provided all conditions are met. Other partners are encouraged to propose themselves to host the next yearly meetings.
A poll was created to organise the event.
Large user meetings
UPSud has already started to organise a meeting at the CIRM in Marseille which will probably take place at the end of 2017. A meeting is planned at the ICMS in Edinburgh, for which St Andrews participants are encouraged to investigate. The third meeting tentatively planned by Kaiserslautern must be discussed upon as well.
Kaiserslautern must be contacted by VP in order to get more information about the 4 planned GAP-SINGULAR workshops, especially for the one that is supposed to happen in 2016.
MK suggested that ODK takes more initiative to advertise the project to new communities, in particular working mathematicians outside of the inner CAS crowd. Examples of initiatives are a meeting on the annual Joint Maths Meetings, or the ECM/ICMS (Berlin July 2016; that is probably too late now), but also overview articles in the Notices of the ACM/ECM, the Math Intelligencer, … As proposed by UM and by VP, MK will provide contacts to VP in order to advertise ODK better.
MK suggested that the coordinator just take its favorite pick and be done with it. NT will do it after a brief poll.
CP: to what extent can ODK fund people to attend, e.g. Sage Days?
NT & VP: ODK can either fund ODK participants to attend relevant events, or fund external people to events that are organized by ODK. For example, Sage Days 70 in Berkeley was officially coorganized by ODK, and ODK funded the travel and accommodation of a couple external persons.