- Florent Cayré- lead Logilab (on site)
- Olivier Cayrol- Logilab (on site)
- John Cremona- lead Warwick (on site)
- Mike Croucher- lead Sheffield (on site)
- Wolfram Decker- lead Kaiserslautern (by phone)
- Luca De Feo - lead UVersailles (by sipphone)
- Paul-Olivier Dehaye- lead Zurich (by video)
- Vincent Delecroix- lead Bordeaux/CNRS (on site)
- Jeroen Demeyer - lead Gent (on site)
- Hans Fangohr- lead Southampton (on site)
- Bill Hart (by phone)
- Michael Kohlhase (lead JacU & FAU and lead WP6) by video
- Alexander Konovalov- (on site)
- Marcin Kostur ???
- Steve Linton - lead St Andrews (on site)
- Dmitrii Pasechnik- lead Oxford (on site)
- Clement Pernet - lead UJF (on site)
- Benoît Pilorget - manager, UPSud (on site)
- Viviane Pons - lead UPSud (on site)
- Martin Sandve Alnæs - lead Simula (on site)
- Nicolas M. Thiéry - coordinator, UPSud (on site)
- SageMath in the next Debian release!
- SageMath ported to Windows (Cygwin)!
- Pythran integration in Cython
- PARI release with generic parallelisation engine
- Jupyter kernels for PARI, GAP and Singular
- NBDIME / NBVAL released
- Python interface for OOMMF released
- 14 events organized or co-organized by OpenDreamKit in year 1 + many interventions and dissemination activities
- Université Paris Sud
- Jacobs University Bremen
- Université Joseph Fourier
- University of Kaiserslautern
- University of Oxford
- 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
- Universiteit Gent
Preparation of the formal review
Discussion about presentation of the formal review
- Who needs to present WP? -> WP leaders
- Who presents deliverables? -> it is the choice of the WP leader
- Need to agree on timings: it will depend on the amount of content to present per WP
- Presentations are different from normal conference contributions: we need to provide context and motivation for the tasks for non-experts, then say what we have done, touching on world leading stuff very briefly, then ideally speak about impact, maybe next steps
- Coherence among different deliverable presentation, especially inside the same WP (including slides template)
- Does it have to be slides for the presentation of deliverables? -> No, suggestion: posters + demos/screencasts on flat screens? Maybe we can do a formal presentation for each WP and D and then have some extra transversal demos.
- Wolfram suggests format where there are posters/demonstrators and reviewers can roam freely to look at those that are of interest to them in more detail. Good opportunity to show what we have done (for example life demonstration of tools we have developed)
- Plan a meeting of site leaders to organize the WP and D presentations?: hopefully yes but for more precise organisation we need to wait for the Review date to be finalised
- Lorena Barba, George Washington University
- Jacques Carette, McMaster University
- Istvan Csabai, Eötvös University Budapest
- Françoise Genova, Observatoire de Strasbourg
- Konrad Hinsen, Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire
- William Stein, CEO of SageMath, Inc.
- Paul Zimmermann, INRIA
A Non-Disclosure Agreement was sent to each. Signed documents to arrive soon. Rationale for having an NDA: Mostly a legal thing. For us, the only use case is if we need to share with them some private info, like personal data.
Quality Review Board
- Hans Fangohr
- Alexander Konovalov
- Konrad Hinsen
- Private repository set up
- Will meet after every Reporting Period: 1st meeting in March/April before the Review (should the technical reports be delivered for review by the Quality Review Board?-> no the Quality Review Board is not supposed to control the quality of the Technical Report. Though there is nothing against it.)
- QRB will pick up some deliverables to check their quality. The objective is to come up with best practice for further deliverables, not to denounce the weakest deliverables
Amendment to the grant agreement
Vote: all sites agree to changes on the issue 193 except for WP7 If any change to the grant agreement about WP7 is deemed urgent, a proposal will be sent for discussion and vote teh week after the Edinburgh steering committee after the brainstorm on WP7.
Key performance Indicators
Note: this is only a proposal of metrics; we are not committed to use exactly them.
TODO (everyone): go through the various metrics proposed and suggest changes/improvements/…
Can somebody (Luca?) provide some scripts to extract numbers that could feature as KPI metrics from common tools we use, such as repositories hosted on github?
News on Oscar’s DFG grant
This is the TRR 199 (there only seems to be only an announcement in German). But googling for TRR 199 should give everybody information soon.
Situation on Deliverables
- Remaining deliverables Month 6
- Remaining deliverables Month 12
- Remaining deliverables Month 18
- README on how to submit deliverables
Reminder: Month 18 is the end of the first Reporting Period, and thus a hard deadline. All deliverables due by this date must be finished for mid-February so that they can be looked over.
After a round table, it seems all unfinished deliverables are being taken care of and will be finished in due time.
Hans: like other EU projects, ODK’s success is likely to be measured by publications, in particular joint publications with co-authors from multiple sites. As an e-infrastructure project, this may be less relevant for us as our primary output is software. Still we should foster joint publications. An opportunity would be to use emerging journals to publish papers associated with Software such as:
- Journal of Open Research Software (JORS)
- Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS)
- Journal of Software for Algebra and Geometry (JSAG)
- Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS)
- There is also CICM 2017 (see http://www.cicm-conference.org/2017, deadline March) for the WP6 people. Is there something we can do together?
WP7 topics in view of personnel changes
To be brainstormed in.
Deadline is 29th March 2017. The EGI’s proposal will probably speed up after the meeting for potential participants in Amsterdam so Benoît will ping them again until we get a final answer.
- Additional suggestions where to look (Paul)