Page Comparison

Agenda/Notes

1. Updates from NSF (5 minutes)

   1. Pending with NSF:

      1. Awaiting any NSF feedback on revised PEP (v2.1)

      2. When will we be made aware of agenda for mid-year review?

         1. Goals are largely settled, in our PEP we had some goals and metrics that have been identified. Some of them would overlap with the program wide objectives. One of the things to do for the ACO is to identify clearly which of them are shared and which of them belong to the ACO solely and will be evaluated for the purposes of the review.

         2. Overall agenda of the mid year review would cover the following topics:

            One of the primary topics that were brought over were - how you feel about overall goals, how do they come to their existence? Then discussion about fulfilling them? one part is the shared goals, getting buy in from other teams etc and the other part is which are the goals that the ACO is responsible for or has direct control over?

         3. Relative to the annual review findings, we want to focus on what the reviewers brought up, this is our plan of action etc. NSF does not want us to go over things that went well. Its not going to be the entire PEP, only sections that needed further clarification and more focus.

         4. Focus on the actions taken, discussion on how we support the overall metrics and how the ACO fits into the picture.

         5. The ACO will start preparing for the year shortly and may reach out to NSF for additional clarification or if there are more questions.

         6. Since its going to be only one day review. How to enable this and re create this in one day for something that happens over a two day process. The ACO breaks and let the panel meet, and then the panel can ask questions in real time during the closing sessions.
            

      3. Question lodged with NSF regarding sharing of ACCESS data via XDMoD

         1. With regards to data sharing, who do you think the "we" should be?

         2. Do you have a recommendation on who best to lead that from an OAC program officers?

         3. The nature of the data is expanding.

         4. After Johns discussions from last week, when XDMOD was first developed, initially had different permissions depending on different roles in 2012.

         5. But it was later determined that all that data needs to be publicly made available.

         6. Office of Director if this was compliant with the data privacy policies? This question wasn’t raised for a long time. But its important to revisit and re confirm, to show the landscape more fully and including systems.

         7. how can we make sure that the data is being protected. We can ask Nathan to put together a statement? John to ask Tom Furlani and their team to convey the constraints that they work under.
            

2. Debrief on quarterly meeting

   1. ACO has learnt some things and we will continue to make continuous improvements.

   2. Breakouts rooms and parallel sessions were a good way to encourage team building efforts.

   3. Tom G - I thought the EAB session that was built in was a goos way to get more visibility and transparency on their thoughts. Similarly, interested to know the feedback from all staff on the program wide sessions.

   4. Lavanya to send out a survey to all ACCESS staff to gather feedback. Add another question, if we had to redo thing what would you like to discuss in the future, what other agenda topics would you like to discuss in the future.

   5. Ask Sharon for her thoughts next week.
      

3. What have we heard from stakeholders? (5 minutes)

   1. Shawn gave a presentation last week on the AI resources available to the environmental staff. Though the Hubs project, Kim volunteered Shawn to give a presentation

      1. It is available on the Google Drive, if anybody would like to view the presentation.

   2. Kim on her way to Grace Hopper Conference.

   3. Rear Admiral John Lemmon asked to tour the campus and NCSA was a stop and John hosted him and talked about ACCESS and Delta. We're hoping some collaboration can come out of that.

   4. Jay had a positive feedback about the ease of securing an effective allocation through ACCESS, from an astronomy faculty member.

   5. Jay had another positive conversation with a student about a securing an allocation and also securing a scholarship.

   6. Last Thursday and Friday, OAC Advisory Committee convened and ACCESS was mentioned prominently. It was presented as a central part of the strategy and opportunities. There were no strong concerns.

   7. Shawn mentioned that Lisa K was on the SDSC campus for a workshop ( evaluation of K12 curriculum), he talked with her about the evaluation work. It was one of the feedbacks from the May NSF review. We are also working on improving our external evaluation efforts.

      1. NSF is Looking forward to that kind of connectivity, it will not be fully complete. It can be shown during the mid year review.
         

4. Area updates (10+ minutes)

   1. ACO

      • Overall facilitation of the Quarterly Meeting

      • Ran a very successful program wide interactive discussion on goals and metrics: significant inputs on metrics came out of the session, see Breakout Documents: Goal 1, Goal 2, Goal 3, Goal 4, Goal 5, Goal 6

      • Led discussion of program wide goals with EAB

      • Work on the Privacy Minders document is under way, but no CGC meeting this past week.  Next CGC meeting is Oct 5.
        

   2. Evaluation;

      1. Eval WG will be working with the outputs from the program-wide metrics exercise to incorporate into the draft eval plan.
         

   3. Communications;

      1. Chartering both Communications Standing Committee and Branding & Web Presence Working Group

      2. Communications is very focused on SC23 now

      3. The student research story that came out of PEARC was published on ACCESS and NCSA sites.
         

   4. Community Engagement;

      1. Chartering Community Building and Engagement Standing Committee

      2. Next meeting of committee: next week (October 3).

      3. During the November review, will there be a case study or more detailed example that can be demonstrated during the November review? such as if you've made a community faster, gave more access to resources etc
         

   5. Project Office;

      1. Completed clean of Atlassian Users - removed any users who have not logged in for over an year. Along with that also working with Atlassian to get a quote for an upgrade

         1. Confluence users numbers can be a metric as well. This goes beyond the program as well, because even the RPs etc also use these products. And the NSF panel might be interested in knowing that.

      2. Submitted request to purchase for Freeman electrical services for the ACCESS Booth at SC

      3. Created feedback form for the quarterly meeting to be shared with all ACCESS staff soon.
         

   6. EAB:

      1. Planning for in-person - Cindy working on hotel blocks for the December meeting.

      2. PEARC EAB report under review

      3. Shawn would be reaching out to folks to find an EAB chair.

      4. Following today's meeting, Cindy to reach out to the EAB to get some feedback

      5. Cindy helping out with the RAC meeting as well.

      6. Shawn to write a report from the EAB meeting that was concluded last week.

      7. Shawn discuses some of this issues they have faced in the past - getting participants to the meeting, shows how engaged the members can be?

         Comments on the report that we report also shows their engagement? 

         1. It would be great if we can move forward with less involvement from the ACO. Trying to balance it as best as we could.

         2. One of the benefits of having a chair is helping create an agenda and driving some of the conversations.

         3. We are moving in the direction of more involvement. Tom G mentioes that we should recognize that as we move towards the SC timeframe.

         4. The broadening participation session that is something the EAB likes to talk about, to move that into this direction. Shawn can see some alignments happening in this direction. Tom G agrees that this is a healthy discussion.

      8. Synergies between CASC, CARCC, campus champions etc.

         1. Each of the groups' maturity, roles etc is intriguing. The office would benefit from whatever ideas emerge from that It can be helpful from an external users perspective to understand the benefits and boundaries of each of these organizations.

         2. Tom G is external to all these organizations and is curious to know, however Sharon has been very involved in these organizations and may have more to add.

• item

• item