Page Comparison

Agenda/Notes

1. Updates from NSF (5 minutes)

   1. Fourth quarterly report has been submitted and NSF will get to it.

      1. Comments were received about the PEP and will be addressed

      2. We will be applying what was commented by the NSF to ACO received comments from NSF regarding PEP and IPR changes

      3. ACO to apply comments on the next IPR.

      4. PEP: should we hold off until after the review for the update?

         1. It would be good to Sharon suggested updating the PEP in time for the reviewers to have an updated PEP with the comments from NSF

      Still

      1. 1. before our review

   2. We still need to discuss a potential travel supplement for the in-person quarterly like last year

      1. Will address a bit further if needed We will address where this stands after re-budgeting numbers are confirmed on if we need to submit another supplement

      AI Institute: need to continue to reinstate and mention ACCESS as a resource to those new at the AI institute (i.e., graduate students)

      1. or if what is remaining enough

   3. AI Institutes aware of ACCESS, but still want more news

      1. Sharon will continue to include info about ACCESS in her presentations
         

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

   1. Nothing additional to report

   2. John has been meeting 1-1 with PIs from other Service Team; they feel it’s been useful and will continue to do this

   3. CASC: no particular feedback about ACCESS

      1. Consider doing an update on ACCESS at the next CASC meeting

         1. There was a panel on challenges that people are having with Data Center re to power
            

3. Area updates (10+ minutes)

   1. ACO

      1. IPR submitted

   2. Evaluation

      1. Email sent from Dave re. the corrected survey results

      2. We have a draft report from the Ext. Evaluator and will be discussed internally

   3. Communications

      1. TACC language

   4. Project Office

   5. EAB

      1. Pending final report from the EAB by this week
         

4. Misc:

   1. Review To Do Tasks for NSF Meetings

   2. Annual Review: is there anything that NSF should do or acknowledge about potential a KPI as an FYI to the reviewers (i.e., this was not addressed this quarter)Annual Review:

      1. Tom: are there KPI gaps anywhere that we need the reviewers to “go light” on?

      2. What is the NSF going to make available to the reviewers?

         1. Updated PEP, two prior review reports, your responses, slides we provide, and recently submitted quarterly report

      3. Shawn: do you want us to make anything more available to the panel?

         1. Shawn - Re: the ACCESS-wide survey – results could be included more anecdotally, but a plan hasn’t been developed around the feedback yet

   3. CITAP: no news at the moment from NSF

   4. Review To Do Tasks for NSF Meetings - did not get to.