Andrea announced the lighting talk in IT for StackExchange. This will be 5 minutes talk.
Software discussion at the ECFA. Common software challenges and HSF/CWP could be a topic. The ECFA meeting ison 3-6 October.
Got the acceptance from all the reviewers. They are organizing the travel. Meeting rooms reserved.
DOE program manager, Lali Chatterjee, has objected to an “HSF review of the GeantV project” with the argument that no external organization should review a DOE (partially) funded project.
Daniel Elvira basically proposes to remove the word ‘review’ from the GeantV review and call it “HEP software community meeting: detector simulation R&D”
Torre, John and Pere are of the opinion that she is probably not correct here. There are many examples of internal reviews of DOE funded projects For example each of the US LHC projects (ATLAS, CMS) organize internal reviews, which reports the findings and recommendations to the projects themselves.
We agreed that we will write a page (in the HSF website) explaining that HSF is just offering a service to the community to organize ‘peer-reviews’ to software projects on their request. The role of the HSF is just to put together a set of experts on a given domain and organize the logistics. This will be the case for the GeantV. The recommendations (mainly technical and on the project strategy, not about the level effort or blessing/killing a project) will be given to the project and not to any funding agency or organization.
Discussion: Michel agrees with the proposal. Suggests that on the HSF website, it is said explicitly that HSF peer-review complements the funding agency reviews and is not intended to be an alternative to them.
John: it is a good role for HSF for projects that are transversal to several experiments.
Liz: Lali sees the HSF in competition to her organization CCE process. Liz does not see this way, HSF is the grassroot component, complements the CCE process.
On the table we have the proposal to hold the kick-off meeting at SDSC/UCSD (San Diego) in January as I described below. Pete filled in a few more things in the HSF Google calendar, but if there are no fundamental objections to doing it in that place sometime in the dates below, we can make an announcement/doodle on the full HSF list to check whether there are other possible conflicts.
Pete updated the calendar with events for 2017.
SDSC is an attractive place in many ways: NSF place, located in US (as we plan the final meeting in Europe) after the HSF workshop in Paris
2 weeks look possible: Jan 16-20 or Jan 23-27. To help decide, Pete will send a mail to the HSF general mailing list with a link to the calendar, asking if people are aware of any conflicts we may have missed.
In addition we need to make a plan to start engaging the experiments in order to make preparations towards the 22-23 Sep, 4-7 pm pre-CWP organizational meeting. This organizational meeting goals are:
(a) Breakdown in working groups
(b) Build a list of questions/charges for the different areas
(c) List of people to participate to the WS and possible convener.
Proposal to use our meeting slot for this initial discussion next week.
There will be a Spack meeting today.
Some discussion about Portage happened on the mailing list:
Weekly meetings resumed!
Pete has managed to have the job opening for the IPCC for ROOT modernization. He is currently looking for good candidates.