Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 3 Next »

Attendees:

John Towns, Dina Meek, Tom Gulbransen, Lavanya Podila, Shawn Strande, Cindy Wong, Sharon Geva, Kim Mann Bruch, Shannon Bradley

Decisions made during the meeting:

    Use Decision Macro


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 the next IPR.

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

        1. It would be good to the reviewers to have an updated PEP with the comments from NSF

    2. Still need to discuss a supplement for the in-person quarterly like last year

      1. Will address a bit further if needed after re-budgeting on if we need to submit another supplement

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

  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)?

      1. 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. CITAP: no news at the moment from NSF

Task report

Looking good, no incomplete tasks.

Parking Lot

Next Meeting: 15th April 2024


Action Tracker:

Use Action Item Macro to track assigned To Do Items - check the box when it is complete

  • Cindy Wong Consider getting EAB feedback on next nomination cycle and process (i.e., competency matrix).

Format:

  • No labels