PEB Minutes
Doc. Identifier:
EGEE-PEB-01-11-2007
Date:01-11-2007
Meeting Object: PEB
Editor(s):
Kristina Gunne
Meeting Date:
01/11/2007
Meeting Place:
CERN
Attendees:
NA1: Bob Jones, Erwin Laure, Kristina Gunne, Frank Harris
NA2: Sarah Nolan Purcell, Sy Holsinger (p), Silvana Muscella (p)
NA3: David Fergusson (p), Robin McConnell (p)
NA4: Vangelis Floros (p), Cal Lomis (p), Massimo Lamanna
NA5: Panos Louridas (p)
SA1: Ian Bird
SA2: Mathieu Goutelle
SA3: Markus Schulz
JRA1: John White
JRA2:
Security:
Collaborating Projects :
Apologies:
Absent:
Distribution:
PEB Members
1. Previous minutes and task list update
No comments were maid to the previous minutes.
Action 60: Closed
2. Deliverables and Milestones
New action: Please have a look at the QR as it stands for the moment! We will send it to the PMB
and on Nov 10th it has to go to Brussels.
Deliverables and Milestones:
MSA3.8: Will need one more week.
We will have to go back and discuss some of the feedback given by reviewers.
MNA2.5.2: (Openlab report) Change deadline to December for future.
DSA1.6: (ROC progress) Will be finished within the week.
MNA2.6.2: (First Tuesday) Sarah has sent an email with the link to the event
(http://www.rezonance.ch/rezo/classes/ft-first-tuesday/geneve/20071121/onecommunity?page_num=0).
PEB Minutes
Doc. Identifier:
EGEE-PEB-01-11-2007
Date:01-11-2007
3. Evaluation feedback EGEE-III proposal
Bob: As far as we understand there are six projects invited to the hearing.
The overall assessment is that we got a score of 12 out of 15. As far as we understand we got to
the second place after the hearing. The first position is held by ETICS (14). We also think that
DEISA has a score of 12, EELA (11.5) Baltic Grid (10.5) OMII Europe (10.0). All the above
figures are to be confirmed.
There are still no guarantees that we shall get funding, however it is very likely that we will be
funded with the mentioned reductions. It is likely that the commission will give us a fixed number
and ask us to come back with a plan of work implementing the suggested cuts. It is very hard not
to follow the suggested changes. If we can find optimizations that reduce the impact it is very
good.
Erwin: Although the proposed changes are very bad for the activities, the global picture is not that
drastic. We still expect around 32 million euros as an envelope which means somewhere between
4-5 million euros less than we asked for. I think that we did a good job during the hearing of
raising the rankings of EGEE.
There have been some email discussions on whether we should have done something differently,
but it is not sure that it would have had any effects on the outcome. Reading between the lines,
the commission seems to wish that we stick to the Infrastructure. The EU is putting in a lot of
money for supporting applications in another call. We are a bit surprised that they asked us to
make cuts in the business strategy however.
Round table of your understanding
SA1: My feeling is that nothing much changed since before the hearing. I guess that they had
already made their minds up. Giving more details about some activities would not have helped.
Bob: While we do understand that some activities think that this is devastating, you still have
made a good job in the preparations, and the fact that you all receive a piece of the budget is a
very good sign.
SA3: No comments. I completely agree with what has been said. We cannot really derive any
explanations from the very short report, it is too bad that we do not get just a little bit more
explanations or guidelines.
NA2: It is very much like we expected.
Business (Silvana): I would like to see some more input on this, as it is now I am out of words.
Concerning the rest, I also remember that the EU said that they would not invest more in Grid
Middleware.
NA3: No further comments.
NA4: The rationale has been kept, but it is devastating for our Programme of Work. We need to
be really clear on how to negotiate this.
NA5: I have no comments with regards to my own part, it is as we had hoped/expected.
JRA1: The questions targeted us beforehand, but we did not expect it to be this bad. It would have
been nice to get some more input in the feedback form. Maybe we need to discuss this with NA4
what they will concentrate and then focus our small efforts on supporting that.
PEB Minutes
Doc. Identifier:
EGEE-PEB-01-11-2007
Date:01-11-2007
SA3: With the closer links we have with the clusters, we have to be very careful where we make
cuts in JRA1.
Erwin: As Bob said we need to see the cut in real money. It is too early to say what the cut really
means. This also depends on what happens on the political level, there is still a risk that
politicians give a bigger importance to DEISA than EGEE.
A PMB meeting will analyse the feedback and start a discussion on how to implement the
suggested cuts.
As input to the PMB meeting we should try to develop a few scenarios on what we could do
within the different activities. Since the cuts are substantial it is clear we will have to cut in some
tasks.
Bob: We also need to look into the priorities within each activity. The cuts will have to be
considered from several angles.
Erwin: We need the guidance from the PMB.
Frank: Once this process is in motion, will we have to change the proposal?
Bob: The changes will be implemented in the Description of Work.
During the negotiations meeting they will probably have a short pre-negotiation meeting with the
project director. After this we will receive a date when we should come back for the real
negotiations meeting. The new document will include more details and show where cuts have
been made. From now on it is the EU who will be in charge of the decisions.
Erwin: We will most probably see a few partners leaving the project. However, these are mainly
small partners so it will not mean any big changes in the budget.
Bob: We will get guidance from the PMB, but as a start it would be good to get input from the
activities. The activity leaders should have a critical look and make a list of priorities and see how
far this would get them.
Markus: You should look into which things the client can do in the user space and what you
definitively must do for them.
Frank: What are the general guidance for the NA4?
Bob: Keep the strategic clusters you have and try to optimize. It is probably wrong to drop any of
the applications we have tried so long to get. In a sense it is the same thing for the business. They
have mentioned a specific part of the activity.
Massimo: It doesn’t seem like the reviewers look at what is being done at the moment.
Bob: No, there are also powerful forces against EGEE to take into consideration.
Erwin: Other than this there is little guidance we can give at the moment.
For NA6 we should see if this should go back into the NA2 activity. This would probably not be
well seen by the EU.
Silvana: I am not sure that this is the good way to do, it is important that the business is not
hidden. The NA6 tasks are so different from those of NA2.
Sarah: Having the business in NA2 would mean it would become a cluster on its own under the
NA2 banner.
Sy: I think it is still better to have it separate to keep it more transparent.
Frank: What is the earliest date we need to have the answers?
Bob: I think the first negotiations meeting will take place in early December.
PEB Minutes
Doc. Identifier:
EGEE-PEB-01-11-2007
Date:01-11-2007
Erwin: I think this is as far as we can get in this discussion today.
4. AOB
No other business was discussed.
Weekly Reports
NA1
NA2
Input on agenda items
--------------------Progress of open actions
------------------------
Major work done during the past weeks; major changes in workplan
----------------------------------------------------------------
SC 07 final stage planning
GAP work - shadowing day
Info sheet translations (German)
summary reports and follow-up for Bratislava/Greece Industrial Days
User Forum website creation and updates
Industry Forum newsletter
Industry Committee (IC) set up
preparation for NA2 face-to-face
Major issues arising
-------------------Major Events Attended
--------------------Plans to attend/organize major events (intra-EGEE and others)
-------------------------------------------------------------
PEB Minutes
Doc. Identifier:
EGEE-PEB-01-11-2007
Date:01-11-2007
-SC07, Nov 10-16, Reno, Nevada
NA3
NA4
Input on agenda items
--------------------1: Discussing questionnaire for "User Survey". Should be available by next week to send to VO managers.
2: Have sent evaluation to NA4 SC members. Will have teleconference tomorrow to discuss possible
scenarios to meet requested 40% cut in strategic clusters.
Progress of open actions
-----------------------Major work done during the past week
-----------------------------------* Organization of Computational Chemistry workshop
* Continued organization for UF3
* Discussion started via email for 40% cuts for EGEE-III
* Finalized NA4 contribution to QR
Major changes in workplan
------------------------None.
Major issues arising
-------------------* Still waiting for final proposal for fusion coordination from PEB.
Major events attended
--------------------Plans to attend/organize major events
------------------------------------* Computational Chemistry workshop at LAL, December 3-4
* UF3, C-F, February 11-14, 2008
NA5
* Input on agenda items:
Item 51: Will send a reminder once the link is made public---need to get agreement.
* Major work done during the past weeks:
- Continued work on commenting on OFG technical standards document
PEB Minutes
Doc. Identifier:
EGEE-PEB-01-11-2007
Date:01-11-2007
- Preparing e-IRG meeting, 30 November
- Commented on e-IRG vision document
- Collaborated with e-IRG troika and e-IRGSP2 on the lines of collaboration when e-IRGSP2 kicks-off.
- Preparing EGI knowledge base in collaboration with EGI_DS
- Preparing report for EGEE'07, for inclusion in MNA5.4.2
* Major changes in workplan:
* Major events attended:
* Plans to attend/organise major events (intra-EGEE and others)
i. e-IRG Meeting, 30 November
SA1
SA2
* Input on agenda items
- D&M: I don't have news about DSA1.6.
* Progress of open actions
none
* Major work done during the past week
- Operational Handbook for the LHC OPN;
- Preparation of the next OPN meeting;
- As discussed at the JRA1 All Hands, SA2 and EUChinaGrid will organize an IPv6 tutorial for
developers (in Jan. probably).
* Major changes in workplan
none
* Major issues arising
none
* Major events attended
- JRA1 All Hands, 24 Oct. @ CERN
* Plans to attend/organize major events (intra-EGEE and others)
- LHCOPN meeting, 5-7 Nov. @ CERN
- JRES, 20-24 Nov. @ Strasbourg, FR
SA3
JRA1
Input on agenda items
--------------------Progress of open actions
-----------------------65 - Ongoing. At the All-Hands meeting. Code reviews as needed agreed.
YAIM configurations should be tested by developers as well.
Savannah bug analysis task presented. (hard to organize)
PEB Minutes
Doc. Identifier:
EGEE-PEB-01-11-2007
Date:01-11-2007
Some formal training offered?
The relevant metrics are needed, linked to access to snapshot of
the "Savannah DB"
Major work done during the past weeks; major changes in workplan
---------------------------------------------------------------Support and bug-fixing on the production middleware
No major changes in work plan... some minor additions like code reviews etc.
3.1 SL4 WMS tests continuing.
CREAM readiness work ongoing.
Major issues arising
-------------------EGEE-III proposal review.
Major Events Attended
--------------------JRA1 All-Hands meeting 24-26th, CERN.
Plans to attend/organize major events (intra-EGEE and others)
------------------------------------------------------------All-Activity
User Forum
JRA2
RPLO