Page Comparison

...

...

Decisions made during the meeting:

...

1. Introduction of Puri Bangalore
   

2. Approval of summaries from prior EC meeting John Towns (5 mins)

   1. 2024-09-10 (Cancelled) ACCESS EC Meeting Agenda & Summary - no meeting last week
      

3. Discussion of EC Charter review issues John Towns (20 mins)

   1. Document: ACCESS EC Charter (September 2024)

   2. First topic: important item from EC Charter review

      1. quorum for a meeting - requires representation from all awardees (all 5) - we can discuss, but make no official decisions if we don’t have a quorum

      2. should we retain this, or change?

         1. Flexibility is good - we can meet or not meet if people are absent

         2. There would be some things we cannot do without everyone in attendance - like voting

   3. Definition of Purpose: need to sort out comments from Tim and Dave

      1. concept of external advisory board - there is a bit on it later but should we have a comment here as well?

      2. EC is responsible for integrated performance of the program overall - but how does coordinating correlate with being responsible for performance

         1. not evaluated on this by NSF

         2. could we say responsible for integration of the suite of services provided

            1. “The EC is responsible for the overall success of the ACCESS Program”

         3. This is a charter for EC not the ACO

            1. ACO does coordination for EC

            2. EC is supposed to be responsible for overall success and integration of program

         4. Should be able to strike those sentences because it is defined up above - include “coordination and integration”

      3. EC is a primary governance body - which interacts with the EAB in its advisory capacity

         1. don’t introduce EAB at top - keep it all in the later section - be sure to define what EAB is and does

   4. Membership: This is cleaner cleaned up quite a bit

      1. NSF: Solicitation states NSF Cognitive Program Observer(s) as “observers.” Is this correct language?

         1. Solicitation specifically uses “observers”

         2. Sharon - use whatever is in the solicitation - it is not in the program terms and conditions

      2. Need to determine if RP Forum chair is voting or non-voting

         1. RPs are required to participate in the ACCESS program as much as PIs - builds stronger community - doing things together

         2. Decision: Voting member for RP chair in EC meeting

      3. Member vs participant vs observer

         1. ACO project manager, EAB facilitator and evaluator of ACO - are participants

         2. PIs/co-PIs/Alternates and RP are members

            1. If RP form chair is a voting member - should they have an alternate to stand in when they are not available - yes - should be the same as the rest - should be vice-chair

         3. NSF is observers

         4. EC is 6 people - they are members who vote

            1. there are other participants who participate for various reasons - non-voting

            2. NSF is observer - will use that for Lisa too

            3. alternates can be voting members when needed

      4. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ - carried over to next meeting in 2 weeks

   5. Role of the ACO: see exchange between Dave and John on this in comments

      1. perhaps list ACO participants (not formal members) here?

      2. if not, should we move this somehow?

   6. EC voting:

      1. should only voting members of the EC be able to call for a vote?

   7. Voting rights: Strike this section?

   8. Meetings and quorum

   9. WGs and SCs:

      1. WGs;

         1. see comments in doc regarding when appropriate
            

4. Panel Review Summary John Towns (15 mins)

   1. [deferred until next EC meeting]
      

5. RP Workshop debrief and next steps Shelley Knuth (15 mins)

   1. Very successful

   2. Many action items

      1. Reporting from Quarterly Meetings - Who will summarize and report to the rest of the RPs - Jeremy will for Next week

      2. Metrics - questions about XDMOD and where to find data and manipulate

      3. Training on ACCESS IDs
         

6. RP Presence @ ACCESS Quarterly Meetings (10 mins) Stephen Deems Shelley Knuth Jeremy Fischer

   1. Discussion about: can the RPs join in the Quarterly Meetings?

      1. for next week - it would be remote - others possibly in person?

      2. What about December virtual - they attend the full session?

      3. Would there be issues with RPs joining certain sections next week? (ones that are open session - like what is everybody working on would be very valuable for the RPs)

   2. Inviting RPs into the meetings addresses a large number of our quarterly planning framework:

      • “More time spent learning about the work the various teams are doing; looking for synergies and leveraging shared effort”

      • “Less time on high-level update presentations that look backward, more time looking forward to what we want to achieve as a program”

      • “More time hearing from non-EC staff”

      • “Opportunities for working sessions where people from different teams can get together”

      • “Time recognizing staff contributions and our shared progress and successes”

        • Topic is program-wide in nature

        • Topic is forward-looking

        • Topic must be led and facilitated by multiple awardees

   3. Perhaps just 1 person from each RP - need to make sure budgets are updated appropriately
      

7. EC Action Items from Quarterly Meetings John Towns (10 mins) - moved to next meeting

   1. in EC Meeting To Dos - Change Filter to view individually
      
      

8. EC Program Milestones John Towns (5 mins)

...