EC+ Quarterly Meeting Notes

Agenda — ACCESS EC Quarterly 

Format: Virtual (Zoom/Teams)

Link: Join our Cloud HD Video Meeting

Full Synthesis: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mt8_RwMZdJMGKTCohDIbQ-4T3C-4js0k/edit

Attendance:

Executive Summary

This quarterly meeting doubles as the Program Year 5 (PY5) planning session. The morning features five equal-time, data-driven award presentations responding to NSF guidance (plans justified by data already collected across ACCESS). The afternoon synthesizes cross-award themes and identifies 3–5 ACCESS-wide PY5 priorities, with attention to feasibility, coordination, and early succession/sustainability planning. The day ends with clear decisions, initial leads, and next steps.

9:00 – 12:50 PM — Data-Driven Award Plans

9:00 – 9:15 — Welcome & Framing (John Towns, Misha Shah)

Facilitator notes: Reinforce goals and expected outputs; reference NSF’s data-driven expectation; set collaborative tone; invite listening for cross-award opportunities. (Includes a 5-min buffer.)

First joint planning session since the inception of the project

Housekeeping:

• Shannon - notes, summary after lunch

• Chuck and Misha - facilitators

• Please leave video on if you can

• Review ACCESS code of conduct

9:15 – 9:45 — Award Presentation #1: (Led by ACO - John Towns) 

• https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aZiQD39sEFjcCNn-KCEXxq03yNB51H12/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=108483074521788833672&rtpof=true&sd=true

Tom - transition planning - is this part of the PEP?

John - yes it is part of our most recent PEP - late in XSEDE they did do transitional plans and prepared a hand off to the next awardee

Misha - back on the dependencies slide - a lot of the collaboration and dependencies leans on the internal groups - does anything need elaborated on? does this impact your team in a way you hadn’t listed

Leslie - doesn’t see any major change

John - do you see challenges in any of your teams being able to actively participate in the ACO’s needs?

Dave - A lot of the collaborations are meta groups - this is the right approach - not going to the overarching groups - going to sub sections

Tom - what is lost in the continuous improvement we have had along the way - we are moving in the right direction

Dave - year 5 not a phase for big changes - in Communication- have you given any thought to the campaigns?

John - not yet because we were waiting on this meeting - there will be a PY plan that will be developed over the

Shannon - is there anything that you need but is not delivered yet - none

Amit - Dave’s question - closeout plan - once we know what the follow on will be - we will need to communicate that to the community - that should be in the comms plan

9:45 – 10:15 — Award Presentation #2: (Led by Support - Shelley Knuth)

• https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Z9WlAoZv4IDu-mMq9G6oArO9UuLCB-Ya/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=108483074521788833672&rtpof=true&sd=true

Tom - is there a role with CaRCC and Campus Champions in there somehow?

Shelley - they did a lot of work with Champions in the first couple years - they have now branched off and evolved down a different path - they are not as engaged now - they are working on an Enhancement focused grant

Chuck - they had to change because their supporting groups changed - they had to find their new niche

Tom - transition plans - part of the ACO transition plan could be looking at what went well from XSEDE and what could have been better and how that impacts our next transition

Dave W - how to package up training materials for future use - how to leverage preexisting training and how to make it available for the future

Shelley - make it available - Jupyter notebooks? -

Joe White - how to RPs feed into this? Can you get some help from them to store materials?

Shelley - they could - have not thought that far down the plan yet - they will come into this - they could host some at CU but not sure what we should do from a practical standpoint

Dina - has been working with Joel who does the training videos to figure out what we can link to from various places throughout the website so a video is available right there - updating ones that are out of synch - would be helpful if we can get it fully implemented

10:15 – 10:30 — Morning Break - we finished early at 10:00 am - will start back at 10:30

10:30 – 11:00 — Award Presentation #3: (Led by Operations - Tim Boerner)

• https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1KnPEIUU4Fpds-awNqF5jjXCq7Ay0NFqL/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=108483074521788833672&rtpof=true&sd=true

John - STEP program - are there opportunities to work with support to deliver materials developed more broadly

Winona - that could be possible - some of the materials are sourced from the community anyway - there are several activities that have been developed that are well received - they can review their catalog in the ACCESS github so they are open to reviewing and seeing what could be applicable - their work is focused on working in operations/CI professionals

John - finding connections that he has not considered before

Dave - many of the applicants have research interest - so while it is a mixed bag - they understand applicants have both viewpoints

11:00 – 11:30 — Award Presentation #4 (Led by Metrics - Tom Furlani)

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZG1cQwEYhFGMPY6CSpQl7izwST9s9vD4/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=108483074521788833672&rtpof=true&sd=true

Will be leaving out some of the collaborative work with other teams because they were covered earlier

Dave - slide of the map - with the legend - what do the colors represent?

Joe - number of different institutions in each state using ACCESS resources (heat map) - not sure of underlying metrics exactly

Laura - user like me information will be helpful when she thinks about user perspective - what about onboarding data - how long will it take to transition work from 1 system to another - there may not be an actual metric for it - but do we track date of allocation to date of first job

Tom - he thinks they capture that data

Dave H - they can look at time per resource - setup via onboarding - have not yet presented that info yet - would show how quickly RPs are responding

Joe W - this will be added to the ACCESS RP report

Tom - also looking at wait times per resource - they do vary week to week - working on how to point people to speedy resources

Dina - hoping for more uptake and knowledge around difficulty of working thru processes - have you considered help videos like what Shelley’s team produces

Tom - they really want to do that - 1 to 2 mins - will be following up on that

11:30 – 12:00 — Award Presentation #5 (Led by Allocations - Stephen Deems/Dave Hart)

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IQjgVAYNmhUrzdBbLPCD4qouiZbPpD8eB0THyoL18H4/edit?usp=drive_link

John - growing gap between open projects and usage - is that you are seeing people using a smaller fraction of what they are allocated

Dave - that and more projects have 0 usage - usage is not growing as fast as what the number of projects would suggest - we need to find a way to identify how to help them move forward (just logging in to a resource would solve 80% of the issue)

Chuck - I wonder if that “growing gap” is a result of reaching out more and more less computationally sophisticated new users?  It definitely takes more time for those and more directed training path.  
Amit - is it more recently that usage is lower or is it from the first year of ACCESS? Was utilization better with XSEDE?

Dave - probably yes - with XSEDE it was probably greater because of what you had to go thru to get the resources - since ACCESS is intentionally easier it may attract people but they realize they don’t know what to do - possibly have a short training for people in that phase of their onboarding - it would have to be approached collectively

Misha - Full circle - from our prework: Clearer onboarding: “You have an allocation — what happens next?”

Dave - there are 3 groups with similar goals - this could be a big win

12:00 – 12:10 — Open Reflection (Led by John Towns)

Misha - review of what comes next

leverage pre-work summary and this mornings summary to make 5 over arching goals

John - already seeing similar goals - but we haven't really seen the interdependencies as clearly yet

Question: How are we providing plans and reporting to NSF on the NAIRR Pilot? ACO does not have a link to the pilot like the other teams - it is reported on a separate award.

Shelley - it is part of their award - so they report up through their reports

Same for all other awards

John - should there be goals that are NAIRR pilot specific?

Shelley - doesn’t think so - anything they do for NAIRR has to benefit ACCESS - they are taking info they are learning from NAIRR and applying to ACCESS as they go (or vice versa) - goals incorporate both but are not necessarily NAIRR specific

Tom - good to see what others are doing - we don’t see this much detail in the EC meetings.

• Quick group synthesis of cross-award themes.
  Facilitator notes: Prompt: “What common threads did you hear?” Keep to high-level observations.

12:10 – 12:50 — Lunch Break

12:50 – 3:40 PM — ACCESS-Wide PY5 Priorities

12:50 – 12:55—  Share Summary of Morning Sessions (Led by Shannon Bradley)

Notes from the morning session will be shared with all attendees. 

12:55 – 1:25 — Synthesis: Themes & Signals (Led by Misha Shah, Chuck Pavloski)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mt8_RwMZdJMGKTCohDIbQ-4T3C-4js0k/edit

Review major themes from:

• Morning award presentations

• Pre-work PY5 idea submissions

Identify areas of convergence/divergence.

This is a Group Discussion so input from everyone is valued

Focusing on: which ones can we tackle or pick now as overarching focuses - common themes

1. Improving User Guidance, Personalization, and Usage Intelligence

2. ACCESS-Wide Documentation, Policies, and Operational Alignment

3. Transition and Sustainability Planning for Post-ACCESS - transition of ACCESS to successor awardees

4. Support Tool Hardening / Modernization and Responsible Use of AI - put in #2

5. Strengthening ACCESS Scientific Impact Visibility -

1 & 2

John - #2 is this potentially repetitive with #1

Dave - this one may have too many moving parts to be a single activity - references many other topics - could we pull out some of the RP elements?

Dave - options 1 and 3 definitely - maybe not #2

Leslie - at the RP workshop 1 of the requests we had from the RPs was a better onboarding/offboarding documentation - we need better documentation across the program

Shelley - #1 is user facing - #2 is internal updates – she sees the delineation between the 2 - what is deliverable from today? What is goal?

Chuck - the point of this is solid direction out of the 5 themes we are compiling here

John - The goal for the day is to determine the 3 to 5 priorities from whole program - once decided we would need to write toward those in our program plan for PY5

Shelley - this doesn’t replace our “provide excellent support” -

John - think of these and what will work toward the goals

John - #1 is about stakeholder experience with ACCESS ecosystem - #2 have you defined that adequately with documentation

Tim - Right now - are we looking at should these 5 topics be priorities? We should pull out those 5 and just talk about them without the details underneath them in the doc

Dave - for #2 Reframe the titles and some of the signals --- maybe if we take some of this out and point it at the RPs this could be a good theme

Tom - we will agree on whether there is 3, 4 or 5 - and we will address those in a unified view on these items in addition to the other work each team will be doing

John - there may be a half page or full page in our reports and same slides in our presentations - so we are consistent

RP representation - this is missing from the thematic areas - turn #2 into the RP facing one

Tim - thought #2 was more internally facing

#3

John - #3 sustainability planning does not make sense to include -

Shelley - should be more transition planning for what can keep going

Tim - if there is no funding for the next phase ACCESS will end

John - let's have a baseline assumption there will be funding for something that comes next

Tim - Successor awardees - which could be ourselves

Tim - #3 might be better - transition of ACCESS to successor awardees

#4

Tim - #4 Tool modernization - what are we modernizing for? is there an aim to have it for something going forward?

Shelley - #4 is this sustainability for the tools? package them for reuse by other groups

Tom - Could we use hardening?

John - why is responsible use of AI in #4 - agree with hardening tools and prepare for future

Leslie - part of this is not related to what we presented this morning - working on MCP server - there are some concerns in making sure we are working together to do it responsibly - policies for use of data across institutions

John - in the last several months there has been more use of AI models in how we operate the program (today is an example) are we ensuring responsible AI use across the program internally?

Dave - if we want to have a conversation of AI and appropriate use - but this may not be a focus area - #4 may not be tightly coupled to this - we probably should not put everything under all of these themes

Tom - you need to leave the next program with a good basis for moving forward

Dave - OS upgrades are part of transition - but AI may not be an overarching theme - not everything we do has to fit in one of the 5 themes

John - could make 4 go away - and make 3 program closeout include tool hardening - an AI theme might not be good for PY5

Tim - responsible use of AI may not be a theme - it is a task

Shelley - we still have a year on the program - pulling tools into the transition plan may not be correct for going forward

Derek - Acceptable AI Use Policy? This has come up before in the Cybersecurity group - we don't have a lot of resources to evaluate all of these things - but we could provide a set of rules (NSF has some already created) - this may be worth working on in general

Tom - came around to John and Dave’s view - to Shelley’s point Shelley will focus on in her programming for PY5

Derek - plan in transition like we are going to do it - would like to see can we agree on a place where we will deposit all of our good work and things we may hand over - doc, policies, etc. - which are scattered all over the place - we need to figure out how to manage that

John - part of the answer is that we have a community (U of I has IDEALS) and there will be persistent identifiers - this doesn’t address code/github etc. - yes we need to collect them

John - tool modernization and AI - we should develop a policy for AI and put that in #2 with the other policies

Shelley and John - do away with #4 and put them in #2

#5

John - from ACO perspective - writing the science stories and sharing with community, newsletters, help to improve visibility - are there other ways ACO can attack that? yes - so this one is really important

Dave - is this being directed by Sharon? work on your story

Dina - to her mind - we are doing a lot of this pretty strongly

Chuck - are you resource limited?

Dina - somewhat - likes the idea of creating a mechanism on the website for showing publications - they are already reviewed as items for articles looking for broad impact items - not sure how many more stories we can create that people will read - we struggle getting people to read the newsletter - we use a tool for news distribution service - right now we are maximizing what they can do - now we are focusing on maximizing

Dave - this one is not as high effort - but it is pervasive - we should talk about it and make sure we are working together along these lines - likes this one but it is a good last one

Dina - maybe workshop this in the next quarterly meeting

Misha - is there anything in #5 we need to consider that is beyond comms?

Shelley - do we need this theme - it seems narrowly focused to the point it may not be overarching?

Chuck - it is not just telling stories - if we are not strongly explaining what science is getting done because of us

Tom - look back and need to find a way to make it obvious it was work it

Tim -

Dave - whether this turns into an overarching focus of the year - we have exposed the need for talking about publications in PY5 - whether it is formal or in-formal - some time in Q1 metrics and comms should sit down and chat

Joe - need to show the great things ACCESS is doing and be able to highlight it to NSF to justify the funding

Derek - summary doc beyond what we would provide to NSF - what have we learned after 5 years of ACCESS - that would have to collect all the success stories into some kind of compendium - beyond just a end of project report

Tom - PEARC26 paper on the impact of ACCESS - this could be very impactful

Misha - so is this under Transition plan or a distinct item?

Laura - should we take this to the RAC?

John - this is about impact and visibility

Chuck - anything we need to bring back up to discuss?

Misha - we will come back to #2 when we come back - then we need to discuss what is not in these themes - what else should we record

Facilitator notes: Show a high-level visual; prompt quick reactions; note where clarity is needed. (Built-in 5-min buffer.)

1:25 – 2:25 — Discussion: Highest-Impact Areas (Led by Misha Shah, Chuck Pavloski) - this was consolidated into the above discussion ^^^

Focus on:

• Where ACCESS must collectively focus

• Which areas have strongest data support

• Where cross-award coordination is essential

• Feasibility & capacity (how much new work is appropriate)

• Early succession/sustainability planning (e.g., XSEDE lessons)

Facilitator notes: Steer toward decision-ready proposals; redirect deep technical debate to later working time. (Built-in 10-min buffer.)

2:25 – 2:40 — Break

2:40 – 3:25 — Decision Round (Led by Misha Shah, Chuck Pavloski)

• Identify 3–5 shared ACCESS-wide PY5 priorities

• Confirm alignment to ACCESS goals / metrics

• Identify initial lead(s) / involved teams

• Capture high-level success indicators

• Discuss whether succession / sustainability planning should be included as one of the PY5 priorities (e.g., XSEDE transition model consideration)

Facilitator Notes:

• Use narrowed list from discussion as starting point

• Timebox debate; drive toward convergence

• If consensus stalls: record options + propose decision path
  (Built-in 5-min buffer)

Updated plan for the afternoon:

1. Revisit Item 2

2. Are there any missed themes or priority areas we want to discuss? 

3. What clarifications/data do we need to turn the themes into priorities?

4. Closing: Plan for Next Steps

Item 2: ACCESS-Wide Documentation, Policies, and Operational Alignment

Does it need to be trimmed back and folded into another? Should it be eliminated? - let’s discuss

Tim - falls under solidifying programmatic solidifying - and part of transition

Not everything everyone does has to be listed - are we just doing this as a function of our awards? Is it a focus and not an overarching goal

Leslie - leave it in some way - we have a tendency for all of us to be busy - and usually things like this don’t boil up to the talk - and this is why it was brought forward - whether that will happen if it is not a program wide priority …

John - is worried about that - will we defer doing it and scramble at the last moment

John - is liking Tim’s recasting of the list - but the piece he is struggling with is packaging up tools - that really is not part of transitioning the award - is this splitting hairs too much

Tim - tools for users are #1, RPs #2, and others would be #3 - doesn’t have to be exclusive into one of them

1. Improve the user experience (e.g., better user guidance, personalization of the user experience, and better insights through usage analysis, …)

2. Increase the value delivered to the ACCESS-Allocated Resource Providers (e.g., easier integration processes, simpler and more effective tools, …)

3. Solidify the programmatic foundation for transitioning to successor awards (e.g., modernizing tools, updating documentation and policies, and improving cross-program operational alignment, capturing lessons learned, …)

4. Better capture and articulate ACCESS scientific impact (e.g., through publications data, new captured metrics, new analysis of existing data captured, …)

Joe - there is not an action word there - Improve? Consolidate?

Chuck - Complete?

Joe - need a word in there

Tim - Update

Nathan - how does operational alignment fit with documentation

Misha - look at the recast - does that have better alignment

Nathan - if operational is part of a sub-bullet it should be ok

Tim - is it appropriate for PY5? we have grown a lot as a program over the last ~4 years - taking year 5 to consolidate and create that foundation will be good for us

Chuck - if we do this and do it well it will be a model for other projects going forward

Shelley - likes the 4 rewrites

Tom - likes

John - thumbs up

Tim - his is implied

Tom - not in love with improved visibility - better measures - capture and articulate

Misha - these 4 came from content that came over the past 4 days - is there something that was missed as we think about ACCESS wide PY5 priorities

Tim - need to capture what happens next in those 4 items

Misha - that will be next step

Shannon will take these 4 steps and have the AI / LLM run through all the documents and have it summarize based on the new goals

3:25 – 3:40 — Wrap-Up & Next Steps (Led by Misha Shah, Chuck Pavloski)

• Summarize decisions

• Rerun AI and send out to EC

• Outline plan for written PY5 priorities summary and January follow-up/implementation planning

Facilitator notes: Re-anchor on points of alignment; reinforce shared accountability.

Here’s a structured synthesis of the attached documents, framed against the ACCESS Program Wide Metrics (Goals 1–5).

Open

• Consistent Themes Across Teams:

  • User guidance and personalization (onboarding clarity, tailored reports, recommendations).

  • Operational alignment and documentation (cybersecurity, RP onboarding, policy consistency).

  • Transition and sustainability planning (close-out, lessons learned, artifact preservation).

  • Tool modernization and responsible AI use (support tools, infrastructure integration, governance).

  • Visibility of scientific impact (publications, metrics, outreach).

• Shared Understanding:
  All teams implicitly agree PY5 is about strengthening foundations, ensuring continuity, and maximizing user impact. This alignment must be made explicit in planning and reporting to NSF.

Program Year 5 is the culmination and transition year for ACCESS. The collective focus is not on radical change but on consolidation, sustainability, and preparing for succession. Teams converge on five overarching priorities:

1. Make ACCESS simpler, smarter, and more personalized for users.

2. Strengthen coherence through documentation and policy alignment.

3. Prepare responsibly for program transition and closeout.

4. Modernize support tools and ensure responsible AI/data use.

5. Improve visibility of ACCESS-enabled scientific outputs and impact.

Together, these priorities directly support all five ACCESS Program Wide Metrics and position ACCESS to demonstrate its value to NSF while ensuring a smooth handoff to future initiatives.

ACCESS PY5 Priorities – Quick Alignment to Program Goals

Key Observations

• All five goals are covered across the teams.

• Support and Allocations are the most comprehensive, touching all five goals.

• ACO is focused on program governance and sustainability (Goals 4 & 5).

• Metrics emphasizes innovation and discovery (Goals 1 & 2), with strong support elements.

• Operations balances infrastructure innovation with RP coordination and cybersecurity, spanning Goals 1, 3, 4, and 5.

This table makes it clear that PY5 priorities are well-distributed across the ACCESS-wide metrics, ensuring balanced attention to innovation, usability, support, extension, and program advancement.