sarahcleary
commented
3 years ago Any comments on the above action:
ACTION: @APSIMInitiative/reference-panel to review the links and provide feedback on https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel. If possible, utilise the link and become familiar with the process.
Provide feedback on whether the 'tags' are right and if there need to be guidelines for these.
Feedback on utilising this links - any comments - @APSIMInitiative/reference-panel ??
Keith-Pembleton
2020-10 Minutes
Members: Video/Teleconference:
@yashvirchauhan; @MarkLieffering; @LouisAK; @peter-devoil; @sarahcleary; @Keith-Pembleton; @kchenu; @JulianneLilley; @EnliWang; @jbrider; @sarchontoulis;
Apologies: @sno036; @HamishBrownPFR;
Tuesday 6th October 2020 - 9:30 am AEST
Agenda Item
1.1 Welcome/Apologies
Welcome from @peter-devoil
1.2 Review Minutes
Review Minutes: 2020-09 Minutes
Taken as read and correct
Noted @HamishBrownPFR not present at the meeting.
2. Science/Software
2.1 Check for new APSIM Major Improvements
No new GitHub MAJOR science issues
2.2 Updates from RP on models and reviews
No discussion on Models currently under review - noted updates on individual issues
No new Models requiring review
Discussion on tags and weekly review
https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel - noted that this will form part of the revised "weekly review" process. Maybe to commence operation next year. Noted that RP representatives will all manage their review processes differently. No one size fits all. Requested any suggestions for change: ACTION: @APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel to review the links and provide feedback on https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel. If possible, utilise the link and become familiar with the process. @sarahcleary to add "models under review" and "models requiring review" Provide feedback on whether the 'tags' are right and if there need to be guidelines for these.
Discussion on whether a "check-in" page is required - to see that people are active. Agreed that it would be difficult to see if people had reviewed and just had nothing to contribute. No issues raised for having one. How to do it? ACTION: Investigate a 'check-in' type page or process More of a concern if a conversation hadn't moved on. New Processes need to cover this, which could involve calling an ad hoc meeting on the topic. ACTION: Review options with regard to 'check-in' utilising existing GitHub processes
3 Software
-- Naming of APSIM Next Gen - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ApsimX/issues/4690 - no update, keep on agenda
-- Guidelines for Development - included discussion on @hut104's comment - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/63. ACTION: Clarify @hut104's comment given Development Guidelines as well as the reviewer's instructions on www.apsim.info. No further action required on Guidelines for Development
-- As per requirement from AI SC meeting - RP to consider how to allow (or should there be allowance) for developers not able (capable?) to comply. Discussion included the following points: --- understood that there will be models that will not comply - CLEM, World Modellers etc..
--- developer would need to make a strong case why the model doesn't comply, otherwise the RP would be reluctant to accept due to issues non-compliance in the future. Non-compliance caused many issues with APSIM Classic.
--- @peter-devoil reminded the RP to review and update the Development Plan, if required.
How to stop ApsimNG overwriting saved version of model? ACTION: @APSIMInitiative/reference-panel Postponed discussion as no speaker (@sno036) to the issue
4 Outstanding Actions
-- Concept Note - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/ - underway; @peter-devoil to follow up indiiduals
-- Erik's retirement: no update. @Juliannelilley to draft/coordinate news item acknowledging this effort given Erik's retirement .
-- Infrastructure replacement - refer to issue. Discussion progressing
-- Workshop on soil “P” - Workshop on soilP in nextgen. Discussion on how to progress and foster interaction. Agreed that the workshop needs to happen. Noted that @hut104 would be doing the lion share of development. @Keith-Pembleton to contact @hut104 and work with @hut104 with regard to intent, required resources, timing of workshops
-- Review remaining actions (https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues) - agreed that most should be left open but comment is required by tagged @APSIMInitiative/reference-panel
5 Project/Funding Proposals
@APSIMInitiative/reference-panel to bring ideas to the next meeting for funding by the APSIM Initiative
Submission by @sarchontoulis - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/71 - reviewed and agreed to submit to the APSIM Initiative Steering Committee. Noted still outstanding - @HamishBrownPFR to flesh out a proposal for cofunding a validation of APSIM datasets for consideration by RP
6 Training and Support
Next Gen Documentation/Training - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/42
ACTION: request any updates/developments/progression to be shared with the group. Agreed - outstanding issue but limited capacity.
Update on APSIM Week
Brief update - agreed to discuss in next RP meeting around timeline.
Support
Discussion on APSIM calibration - Agreed this is a complex topic and often confusion around validation vs calibration. Suggest to forward papers if more infomration is obtained about particular problem Suggested an old 2014 presentation by @jwhish would be useful. ACTION: - load up presentation to this issue.
StaleBot is working well for both APSIMClassic and APSIMX repositories
7 RP Roles and Responsibilities
Discussion on "validation evidence" requirement.
Noted that the Validation requirement is not always possible. Often validation sets used to develop APSIM Improvements are unable to be shared publicly.
Discussion on https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/51#issuecomment-680423053
ACTION: @sarahcleary to update "Reference Panel Guiding Principles"
8 Other Business
-- Next AI SC meeting - Wednesday 25/11. Pending Actions? https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/9
Actions as per minutes - some discussed above and others not discussed due to timing.
Discussion on APSIM IP -
Discussion on APSIM IP powerpoint sent via email -- noted issue with new model development - what happens if a model is developed but isn't submitted into GitHub. Who owns? what rights does the 3rd party have?
-- Issue with negotiation contracts. If APSIM Improvement IP isn't owned by the AI on development, what impact does that have on negotiation of contracts? flow on effects?
-- Need for out of session meeting in two weeks time 20/10; briefing notes to be supplied beforehand.
9 Next Meeting
3 November 2020 - 9:30am