Reviewers: all contacted persons except two already responded, positively.
Charge and Goals document has been distributed to reviewers.
Rooms: not easy to find one room for 3 days, will probably have to move from one day to another. Favoured rooms with a central table for the reviewers and the GeantV people over an auditorium-like room. Minimum capacity foreseen: 30 people.
No plan to restrict attendance through registration: everybody interested is welcome, on a first come basis in case of room full (but room capacity is not expected to be a limitation). Remote participation will be possible too.
Best dates identified taking all constraints into consideration: Thu 22-Fri 23 September, ~4-7pm
Need to prepare this pre-kickoff and come with an agenda
Send an email asap to the main involved persons (in particular experiment computing coordinators) to announce the date.
Engage with ALICE (other experiments already pretty well connected)
Have a dedicated meeting/brainstorming session to prepare the agenda end of August or beginning of September
Difficult to find a convenient date.
28-30/11: seems not very convenient in // with LHCC pre-meetings/meetings. Really not appropriate. Excluded
5-9/12: two conflicts identified (LHCb week, LC workshop)
14-16/12: ALICE mini-workshop, travel prices going up from the US (too close to Christmas)
John/Michel/Benedikt: why not to postpone to mid-January. Calendar empty, generally very quiet
Liz/Peter: would really prefer to have it before Christmas to get a chance to converge by Fall
Benedikt: more important to be inclusive than to start one month earlier
LC is not funded yet as a project but have a lot of people involved in SW efforts (e.g. AIDA2020, CERN group…)
Another proposal: Dec. 13-15 with one day of overlap with OpenLab WS. Or 12-14 (Mon-Wed) and push the OpenLab a the end of the week.
Let’s go for a Doodle with the main options: Dec. 5-9, 12-14, January 16-18
Dario will continue to maintain and update the page but we need also to encourage people to contribute in a common way if we want to be more than a portal and foster collaboration around training materials.
Pete suggests to contact the experiments directly to get information on how they organize training. Is essential to get feedback from experiments. Dario did it in the past but at the end people are busy and are continuing their own way. Need to make incentive for the people to evolve the way they are handling training.
Useful to have the meeting at SFT. Personally a bit pessimistic of the outcome. Similar to training to some extents: difficult to get a commitment from projects to move to this new platform and this is not clear this worth the effort doing something just to demonstrate the potential.
Q&A is different than a discussion forum. Discussion forum seems required anyway. The question is can we in addition run a Q&A system (may be extracting the main information from the discussion forum).
CERN had to leave the meeting, let’s continue the discussion after the summer…
No time to discuss