Soybean Model - Discussion on @hut104's comment - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ApsimX/issues/2731#issuecomment-721479267
-- Agreed that the Soybean model should proceed to release once all the Soybean related issues are addressed. Confirm with @hut104 that "agreed" means complete. If so, comfortable with the response under "Issues related purely to the soybean model"
-- Outstanding issue around the lack of units. Model can't proceed to release until issue is resolved or there is a plan/issue to resolve. @sno036 to start an issue/discuss with @hut104 and report back.
New Stock Model
No review received from @LindsayWBell. Discussion on whether to seek an additional reviewer.
Agreed that review by @m8harrison was thorough and will proceed on this basis.
@sno036 and team will now commence the required changes.
Once finalised, will circulate for final approval from RP.
New PMF Gliricidia Model
Awaiting documentation update from @hut104. Sprint occurring shortly with @hut104, @hol353 and @HamishBrownPFR.
@HamishBrownPFR to circulate propose once fleshed out. Request to send to @sarahcleary to ensure sufficient time for discussion with CSIRO finance with regard to co-funding.
@sarchontoulis to finalise the Root proposal and recirculate to AI RP/SC for final approval - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/71
Discussed action from AI SC meeting: RP to review and discuss: Online Training/Update- What are we trying to achieve; What is required to achieve this
@Keith-Pembleton summarised the original reasons for proceeding with APSIM week.
-- Build the APSIM community via GitHub which will help with resourcing
-- Move more people from APSIM Classic to Next Gen
-- Awareness
-- Networking
Noted difficult to build community via online mechanisms only
Discussion on why users haven't transitioned from Classic to NG:
-- Awareness
-- Crop Unavailable
-- Don't understand the benefits of using Next Gen
--- Improved Science
--- Improved Software
--- NG maintained and being developed
--- lack of familiarity with NG
ACTION: Develop a proposal around next steps. PO to work on this with @JulianneLilley, @Keith-Pembleton; @sno036 and @peter-devoil.
Proposal to potentially include
-- list of high interest areas - and how they could be provided
-- 1-pager or other communication mechanism around the benefits of NG
ACTION: @sarahcleary to send cancellation email to all current participants
-- Request from Daniel Rodriguez with regard to the Australian Agronomy Conference - October 2021.
--- Agreed to indicate the AI is happy to be involved.
--- Need to find out more about what they would like
--- Maybe be able to offer a 1 day basic training session
--- Potentially a keynote on APSIM
--- APSIM Networking event?
--- Sub-group (TWB based RP reps): @kchenu @Keith-Pembleton; @hol353; @jbrider; @peter-devoil
--- ACTION: @sarahcleary to contact Daniel and cc sub-group
-- Discussion on book vs special issue of journal.
Worth considering
For discussion in next meeting
Discussion/Finalisation of RP "principles of membership"
-- Action from AI SC meeting: RP to develop a role statement for RP Representatives
--- includes tasks but also expectations such as flagging new developments early
ACTION: @sarahcleary to update the "Reference Panel Guiding Principles"
-- requires election of Chair to be updated.
-- discussed @uqghamme's concern around online interactions may limit early collaborative discussions with regard to development planning. RP comfortable with @peter-devoil's suggested amendment (on the issue)
ACTION: @sarahcleary to work with @jbrider and @EnliWang on Role Statement in conjunction with the "Reference Panel Guiding Principles"
9 Other Business
Actions from AI SC meeting - Wednesday 25/11.
IP Discussion - Finalise the discussion
ACTION: RP to consider the scenario raised by PT which involved a process where there is line of sight, potentially negating the need for owning the code on conception.
-- although a practical approach, even with line of sight, it is difficult (if not impossible) to interpret what a developer is doing by "reading code".
-- Disucssion led by @HamishBrownPFR on current terminology. Not clear and not straightforward. ACTION: @sarahcleary and @HamishBrownPFR and @peter-devoil to look at terminology, ownership, location (e.g. sitting in model vs management script), type of code, requirement to use APSIM Infrastructure to use code; etc..
Guidelines for naming models that function in APSIM vs APSIM models
Outstanding Action: Provide guidelines for users with regard to badging (and referencing) their models as APSIM prior to AI RP peer review.
ACTION: @keith-Pembleton to draft guidelines for review. Include examples of best practice
**Guidelines and Protocols of how the AI manages Data"
Will require defining the different types of data used by the AI
Providing scope around what the AI requires from each type of data - access for what purposes
ACTION: @sarahcleary, @peter-devoil and @HamishBrownPFR to look at this with the IP definitions above
New pulse varieties - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/76
Agreed that AI funding new varieties would be opening a can of worms, cost prohibited
Would be benefit to provide guidance on how to set up a new cultivar, equivalence guidelines, and encourage developers to include "generic" cultivars (eg. early vs late) in release.
ACTION: @yashvirchauhan to draft guidelines on how to set up a new cultivar, with information on how to submit back to the AI.
10 Next Meeting
-- Agreed to put placeholders for 9:30 Tuesday monthly meetings - to be cancelled if no agenda items. Noting placeholders may be cancelled more 'easily' then firm meetings
-- @sarahcleary to put placeholders for 4 meetings - 3 to be 4-6 weeks prior to the AI SC meeting and a Strategy meeting in Q1.
2020-12 Minutes
Members: Video/Teleconference:
@yashvirchauhan; @MarkLieffering; @LouisAK; @peter-devoil; @sarahcleary; @Keith-Pembleton; @kchenu; @EnliWang; @jbrider; @sno036; @HamishBrownPFR; @JulianneLilley
Apologies: @hol353; @sarchontoulis
Tuesday 1st December 2020 - 9:30 am AEST
Agenda Item
1.1 Welcome/Apologies
Welcome from @peter-devoil for the last meeting of 2020.
1.2 Review Minutes
Review Minutes: 2020-11 Minutes
Taken as read and correct
2. Science/Software
2.1 Check for new APSIM Major Improvements
GitHub MAJOR science issues GitHub ALL science issues
No new issues for discussion
2.2 Updates from RP on models and reviews
Models currently under review
Sorghum model - no update
Soybean Model - Discussion on @hut104's comment - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ApsimX/issues/2731#issuecomment-721479267
-- Agreed that the Soybean model should proceed to release once all the Soybean related issues are addressed. Confirm with @hut104 that "agreed" means complete. If so, comfortable with the response under "Issues related purely to the soybean model" -- Outstanding issue around the lack of units. Model can't proceed to release until issue is resolved or there is a plan/issue to resolve. @sno036 to start an issue/discuss with @hut104 and report back.
New Stock Model No review received from @LindsayWBell. Discussion on whether to seek an additional reviewer.
Agreed that review by @m8harrison was thorough and will proceed on this basis. @sno036 and team will now commence the required changes. Once finalised, will circulate for final approval from RP.
New PMF Gliricidia Model Awaiting documentation update from @hut104. Sprint occurring shortly with @hut104, @hol353 and @HamishBrownPFR.
No new Models requiring review
3 Software
-- Naming of APSIM Next Gen - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ApsimX/issues/4690 - no update
4 Outstanding Actions
-- Concept Note - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/ - completed
-- Infrastructure replacement - Approval from AI SC to fund an APSIM build system in the cloud.
-- Workshop on soil “P” - @Keith-Pembleton to organise a workshop
-- How to stop ApsimNG overwriting saved version of model? @hol430 is working on this. Nearly complete
5 Project/Funding Proposals - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/62
@HamishBrownPFR to circulate propose once fleshed out. Request to send to @sarahcleary to ensure sufficient time for discussion with CSIRO finance with regard to co-funding. @sarchontoulis to finalise the Root proposal and recirculate to AI RP/SC for final approval - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/71
6 Training and Support
Update on APSIM Week - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/73
Discussed action from AI SC meeting: RP to review and discuss: Online Training/Update- What are we trying to achieve; What is required to achieve this @Keith-Pembleton summarised the original reasons for proceeding with APSIM week. -- Build the APSIM community via GitHub which will help with resourcing -- Move more people from APSIM Classic to Next Gen -- Awareness -- Networking
Noted difficult to build community via online mechanisms only
Discussion on why users haven't transitioned from Classic to NG: -- Awareness -- Crop Unavailable -- Don't understand the benefits of using Next Gen
--- Improved Science --- Improved Software --- NG maintained and being developed --- lack of familiarity with NG
ACTION: Develop a proposal around next steps. PO to work on this with @JulianneLilley, @Keith-Pembleton; @sno036 and @peter-devoil. Proposal to potentially include -- list of high interest areas - and how they could be provided -- 1-pager or other communication mechanism around the benefits of NG
ACTION: @sarahcleary to send cancellation email to all current participants
-- Request from Daniel Rodriguez with regard to the Australian Agronomy Conference - October 2021. --- Agreed to indicate the AI is happy to be involved. --- Need to find out more about what they would like --- Maybe be able to offer a 1 day basic training session --- Potentially a keynote on APSIM --- APSIM Networking event? --- Sub-group (TWB based RP reps): @kchenu @Keith-Pembleton; @hol353; @jbrider; @peter-devoil --- ACTION: @sarahcleary to contact Daniel and cc sub-group
-- Discussion on book vs special issue of journal. Worth considering For discussion in next meeting
Support
No discussion required on GitHub 'questions'
8 RP Roles and Responsibilities - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/51
Discussion/Finalisation of RP "principles of membership"
-- Action from AI SC meeting: RP to develop a role statement for RP Representatives --- includes tasks but also expectations such as flagging new developments early
ACTION: @sarahcleary to update the "Reference Panel Guiding Principles" -- requires election of Chair to be updated. -- discussed @uqghamme's concern around online interactions may limit early collaborative discussions with regard to development planning. RP comfortable with @peter-devoil's suggested amendment (on the issue)
ACTION: @sarahcleary to work with @jbrider and @EnliWang on Role Statement in conjunction with the "Reference Panel Guiding Principles"
9 Other Business
IP Discussion - Finalise the discussion ACTION: RP to consider the scenario raised by PT which involved a process where there is line of sight, potentially negating the need for owning the code on conception.
-- although a practical approach, even with line of sight, it is difficult (if not impossible) to interpret what a developer is doing by "reading code".
-- Disucssion led by @HamishBrownPFR on current terminology. Not clear and not straightforward. ACTION: @sarahcleary and @HamishBrownPFR and @peter-devoil to look at terminology, ownership, location (e.g. sitting in model vs management script), type of code, requirement to use APSIM Infrastructure to use code; etc..
Guidelines for naming models that function in APSIM vs APSIM models Outstanding Action: Provide guidelines for users with regard to badging (and referencing) their models as APSIM prior to AI RP peer review. ACTION: @keith-Pembleton to draft guidelines for review. Include examples of best practice
**Guidelines and Protocols of how the AI manages Data" Will require defining the different types of data used by the AI Providing scope around what the AI requires from each type of data - access for what purposes
ACTION: @sarahcleary, @peter-devoil and @HamishBrownPFR to look at this with the IP definitions above
New pulse varieties - https://github.com/APSIMInitiative/ReferencePanel/issues/76 Agreed that AI funding new varieties would be opening a can of worms, cost prohibited Would be benefit to provide guidance on how to set up a new cultivar, equivalence guidelines, and encourage developers to include "generic" cultivars (eg. early vs late) in release.
ACTION: @yashvirchauhan to draft guidelines on how to set up a new cultivar, with information on how to submit back to the AI.
10 Next Meeting
-- Agreed to put placeholders for 9:30 Tuesday monthly meetings - to be cancelled if no agenda items. Noting placeholders may be cancelled more 'easily' then firm meetings -- @sarahcleary to put placeholders for 4 meetings - 3 to be 4-6 weeks prior to the AI SC meeting and a Strategy meeting in Q1.