sarahcleary
commented
3 years ago @krlamkey - link to agenda
Closed sarahcleary closed 3 years ago
sarahcleary
commented
3 years ago @krlamkey - link to agenda
sarahcleary
commented
3 years ago @APSIMInitiative/reference-panel - any additional agenda items, please either add to this issue or call Jason and/or me.
sarahcleary
commented
3 years ago sarahcleary
commented
3 years ago @yashvirchauhan; @LouisAK; @peter-devoil; @sarahcleary; @Keith-Pembleton; @EnliWang; @jbrider; @sno036; @HamishBrownPFR; @JulianneLilley; @hol353; @sarchontoulis; @erik-van-oosterom; @uqschap7; @hut104; @krlamkey
Apologies: @MarkLieffering; @kchenu
Welcome from @jbrider. Welcome to @krlamkey
@krlamkey provided an update on the AI SC Strategy Session.
Key points:
-- Discussed Current Mission and the dichotomy of APSIM being a world class research tool and need to derive commercial revenue.
-- Discussion on new technologies which might impact APSIM
-- Strategy on a page doc is relevant with a few minor changes being proposed. These amendments include agreeing to work more collaboratively in agreed focus areas.
-- Questions/Topics AI SC have requested RP input on: --- Where does the development align with the goals/objectives. This might help find gaps --- Encourage organisations to ‘hunt as a pack’; avoid duplication --- Broaden the horizon; other collaborative opportunities --- Aspirational Developments – look at different ways to approach funding/opportunities
-- Potential opportunity to look at some global funders, such as Gates Foundation, together. Action for next AI SC meeting to discuss.
-- @krlamkey left the meeting.
People went to Break-up rooms. Questions/Topics AI SC have requested RP input on a number of topics. These were the topics requested to be discussed by the break up rooms. --- Where does the development align with the goals/objectives. This might help find gaps --- Encourage organisations to ‘hunt as a pack’; avoid duplication --- Broaden the horizon; other collaborative opportunities --- Aspirational Developments – look at different ways to approach funding/opportunities
Group 3 @Keith-Pembleton provided a summary on Broaden the horizon; other collaborative opportunities discussion -- Need to map current state of collaboration across the AI. Understand the base we have - both between the AI members and other organisations. -- "easy" opportunity around students and existing projects -- not 100% sure on AI SC request. Could it be clarified? is it about showing collaboration between AI Member orgs to justify impact of AI? -- Possibly more in the AI SC remit for consideration and advice with regard to larger collaborative opportunities. However, RP keen to engage and assist. -- Not bureaucratic/administrative challenges to allow organisations to easily collaborate. Many AI SC can help mitigate some of these issues -- Capacity issues - -- Question for the AI SC - what was the underlying problem that the collaboration was trying to solve noting there is already collaboration occurring.
Group 1 @peter-devoil provided a summary on Where does the development align with the goals/objectives discussion -- organisational impediments - similar discussion to Group 3 -- project funding not interested in funding APSIM developments -- Roots project is a good example of bringing people together with diverse perspectives. Would be good to identify additional opportunities
Group 2
@jbrider provided a summary on Encourage organisations to ‘hunt as a pack’; avoid duplication discussion
-- Similar to above discussions.
-- Looked more aspirational, feeding off the Gates foundation discussion
-- Could the AI be more of a facilitator/coordinator, present a larger application involving 7-8 partners?
-- Potential change in role to a facilitator/coordinator of funding opportunities
-- Leveraging AI funding to support larger opportunities.
-- Sharing developments and opportunities earlier - doing this through the development plan but this doesn't show capability or capacity. Only wants not 'actual'. Could communicate this more clearly.
-- Limited duplication; maize, pasture, water - the latter for different purposes
-- Action could be utilising the development plan for more effective communication for this purpose
Group 4 @HamishBrownPFR provided a summary on Aspirational Developments – look at different ways to approach funding/opportunities discussion -- discussion around how development (APSIM code) aligns with objectives (AI SC objectives) -- Is there unalignment? -- Could we approach GRDC (or related funders) directly, rather than piecemeal with individual organisations? -- Rather than putting in competing bids for funding calls, AI members agree to coordinate on these type of funding calls. The extreme example is a business type unit bid on behalf of the AI members
Wrap up Discussion -- Noted that the APSIM part is often just a small part of a large project therefore not appropriate for AI to lead a project -- Are there other open source software with different business models? any lessons to learn -- Access charge to utilise internally - use of APSIM per project. Unlikely to work -- Potential disconnect between the SC and RP and/or not understanding the request in full or not communicating to the SC well enough. potential action - diagram indicating the existing collaborations -- Number of common themes. Already collaborating in many areas; funding is still very competitive; capacity is an issue ACTION: Request further information and direction from the SC. Could be some really important underlying issues which need further discussion and thought.
-- Update on 'communication' approach to GitHub Recap on last meeting and the break-up sessions Issues include too many notifications, so not keen on utilising GitHub Note that many notifications which come from 'pull requests'. Most do not wish to see these as they are techical/software changes However, this is where most of the development occurs. However, if you turn off these notifications, you can miss development. Request to developers to make comment on the top level issue noting what is being done, and preferring tagging a team so people interested in the area are notified. @sarahcleary to develop instructions/training on GitHub use
-- Review purpose of a GitHub "Team" - policy, processes? Process of updating high level issues (miss information in pull requests) Is there a way to "see" this information without watching every issue? Purpose of Teams in GitHub - to facilitate communication across issues, not a watching brief on a single issue. Teams are aimed at facilitating the 'right' level of communication for the broader community, not day to day developers. Trying to capture communication the level of information for people that might not be overly comfortable with GitHub. Can it capture email communication, such as @sarchontoulis email on setting up the root workshop
What is major, what needs to be tagged? the broad principle - to tag anything that may have broad interest. Reassess if ends up being too much information
Please utilise GitHub, tag teams where applicable, review utilising the RP landing page etc.. and provide feedback if applicable.
-- Grape Vine Model - Suggested Reviewers
-- Review of current Review Process - timing; clarity
Grape Vine Model - Models are never finished but @HamishBrownPFR believes it is ready for incorporation into release; at a stage others could utilise it.
Includes only validation data sets from NZ as that is the data that was provided.
Easier for others to add more data sets once it is in release.
Who reviews - is it a single person?
Challenge when it becomes a specialised area, such as horticultural models, tree models etc...
Possible exemption if a software has been reviewed and it's difficult to find a 'science' expertise.
Some cases don't need a full review - e.g. SCRUM model
Option with more specialised science, more of a science review
Given the software is reviewed as part of every pull request. To ensure conforms with software standards.
RP reviews these type of model with the developer/ to present to the RP covering issues such as assumptions background data etc. Provide example simulations
RP review it on the spot. Provides engagement. Invite experts to these review.
In this case, would like to have a grape physiologist present. Possibly, Rob Bramley, Rob Walker as examples
Have a process that can facilitate a way forward not just a list of things to do. Develop terms of reference for this process.
To enable this process, Initiative members should be ensuring there is an "implementation" review as part of a project so when it comes to the formal RP review, it doesn't waste the RP's time.
Advantage it will have firmer dates.
Invite @junqi108 to present to the RP.
Firm list of what needs to be done is an advantage as once those tasks are complete, the model can go into release.
ACTION: Try the RP review in the form of a presentation / two way conversation in the next "placeholder" meeting for the Grape Vine model.
@kchenu unable to attend.
@peter-devoil provided an update.
@m8harrison is too busy to take on the editorship of a special interest.
However, @sarchontoulis and @PeterThorburn has expressed interest. They are meeting in 2 weeks.
The profile/quality of the papers will guide what journal.
Please contact @kchenu if you have a paper you are thinking of contributions/in the pipeline.
@sno036 and @junqi108 may have papers for contribution.
APSIM Initiative Reference Panel Strategy Session
2 March 2021
Invited Attendees
@yashvirchauhan; @MarkLieffering; @LouisAK; @peter-devoil; @sarahcleary; @Keith-Pembleton; @kchenu; @EnliWang; @jbrider; @sno036; @HamishBrownPFR; @JulianneLilley; @hol353; @sarchontoulis; @erik-van-oosterom; @uqschap7; @hut104
Please let me know if you wish to extend the invitation to your colleagues. Preferably, please tag them onto this issue. For non-RP representatives, the meeting will be running to this timing, so if you are only interested in a single agenda item, feel free to phone in at the time.
Topics to be discussed in a Breakout session - potentially one group to discuss a single topic?