Attendees:
Present: Jay Alameda, Cynthia Dillon, Shawn Strande, Cindy Wong, Ron Payne, Lizanne DeStefano, John Towns, Dina Meek, Lavanya Podila
Agenda/Notes
Debrief on EC meeting John Towns
Action items for the ACO
Letters of collaboration
Marker plan similar to XSEDE
EAB Updates Shawn Strande
Evaluation Update Lizanne DeStefano (Unlicensed)
Communications UpdateDina Meek
Community Engagement UpdateJay Alameda
Update to ACCESS New User Guide (working draft at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XTsOJUZk-lY-5sGTke1L5vS_joKlEckQSE1WenyQa1w/edit )
Initial web presence uncovers authentication complexity (as well as non-uniformity of interfaces).
Good goal would be “authentication to one ACCESS site (seamlessly) authenticates to other ACCESS sites”
ACCESS sites use CIlogon https://www.cilogon.org/home which supports openID connect (https://www.cilogon.org/oidc ) which appears to be what is needed to get the cross-domain authentication to work (https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/175712/how-to-implement-cross-domain-auto-login-sso-without-browser-redirects-for-unlo )
If this seems to be a good goal (to implement cross-domain authentication), what should we be doing to help us achieve this goal?
Evaluation (measuring community building and engagement effectiveness):
Community Survey - re-engineering survey seems to make sense, especially given the diverse nature of the community - this is our one chance to make a quality connection to the various facets of the community:
Communities and Incentives (Background)
Overarching: can broadly think about communities being either consumers or providers of services and resources
Allocations
Providers:
Resource providers providing allocable resources and providing proposal review capacity for lower-tier awards
Community of reviewers for largest-tier allocations
Potential Incentives for Providers: Coordinated access to broad community of researchers who could benefit from your resource
Consumers:
Research community needing access to resources to support their research
Potential Incentives for Consumers: access to resources to be able to conduct research and education.
Support
Providers:
CI providers contributing to CSSN (proscribed by solicitation: Cybertraining CIP (now SCIPE CIP), others need to be incentivized to participate: others could include things like CSSI awardees, novel resource providers (that are not already integrating with ACCESS as a term of their cooperative agreement), campuses, ….
Campus champions
Match participants
Potential Incentives for Providers: community grant pilot, supporting conference participation through substantial contributions to the CSSN
Consumers:
Research community needing access to resources to support their research
Potential Incentives for Consumers: access to support to be able to conduct research and education, both self-serve access to CSSN and documentation, as well as higher level of Match support (Match Plus and Match Premier)
Operations
Providers
Not sure we’ve discussed this yet
Consumers
Resource providers, including novel resource providers and CC* regional computing awardees
Interns: students wanting to learn how to be CI professionals
Potential Incentives for Consumers:
Coordinated access to broad community of researchers who could benefit from your resource
Measurement and Metrics:
Providers
Resource providers
Potential incentives for providers:
Provide visibility into impact of your resource for the research community
Consumers
Funding agencies
Resource providers
Potential Incentive for consumers: Access to uniform information about resource usage along many dimensions
Limited information for users, including job data -
Data Sources: what can we use to understand the community:
What data are we collecting today? Where is the data located?
XDMOD, portal databases, …
What enhancements to the data do we need?
What do we need in order to conduct studies on the data? (eg, any IRB approvals needed?)
Challenges and opportunities:
How do we reach people outside of the 50,000 we already know about, for example:
Resource providers that would not normally think of coming to something like access to be integrated, allocated, measured, etc
cyberinfrastructure providers such as software projects
researchers and educators that simply do not have a national, open cyberinfrastructure organization in their view as something that could help with their research and education efforts.
We may need to think strategically about recruiting opportunities, for example:
Identify key program (such as CSSI or CyberTraining) PI meetings that we could ask for an invitation, and opportunity to present and more importantly discuss opportunities for projects to have a quality relationship with ACCESS.
Project Office & Tools Update Ron Payne
Risk register is ready for use. ACO will have an initial risk identification in early January.
PEP updates from NSF feedback to be completed by end of this week.
For all: Tom feedback, Transition Planning: “To frame expectations, please consider noting any activities or pending actions or decisions, pertinent to the ACO scope, which were deferred during the Transition Period to possibly be addressed as backlog during ACCESS operational period. For instance, ticketing was only addressed in an interim fashion.”
For all: Tom feedback, High-Level Work Breakdown Structure: “Please use section5 to introduce the organization and leadership of team activities. Definitions of the WBS elements will be sufficient. Descriptions of the goals and execution plans for activities ought to be moved into the Technical execution sections below. You are welcome to adjust, add, or re-order sections 13-21 to best depict all the elements your WBS.”
Next Meeting: 21 December 2022?