Main repository for the OpenDreamKit H2020 European project

• Website: OpenDreamKit.org
• Proposal files: Proposal/, we also use the proposal as a basis the developing grant agreements, etc. and for the macros.
• Proposal evaluation: ProposalEvaluation/
• E-Concertation with other H2020 E-infrastructure projects: EConcertation/
• 
• deliverables and publications of the respective Work Packages: WP1/, WP2/ , WP3/ , WP4/ , WP5/ , WP6/ , WP6/
• management scripts: bin/
• media files: media/
• Legal documents: LegalDocuments/
• bibliographies, etc: lib/

Instructions for participants

General recommendations

• Use existing infrastructure whenever possible (e.g. Sage's trac server), and in particular when contributing to existing software.

• Use ODK's github organisation for most public ODK specific infrastructure.

Advertise ODK's activities

Add a post in the news or activities pages of the website or an entry in the events section.

Typically a talk at a conference goes in the activities section while an ODK workshop (or related workshop) goes in the events section.

Acknowledge ODK's support

See our Acknowledgement web page

Finance best practice

The Commission attracts our attention to the most common errors identified in cost claims:

• Costs claimed that are not substantiated or are not linked to the project
• Third parties and sub-contracting
• Depreciation
• Indirect cost models
• Indirect costs - Ineligible costs included in the pool of indirect costs
• Personnel costs - Calculation of productive hours
• Personnel costs - Charging of hours worked on the project
• Personnel costs - Use of average personnel costs
• Payment of salaries to owner/managers of SMEs
• VAT (VAT IS INELIGIBLE!)

For the full version delivered by the Commission, click here

OpenAccess process

The Université Paris-Sud published an information sheet on openaccess best practices. You can find the information, in French, here.

However an internal process has been set up (cf Data management Plan)

Partners will be following the process explained below. The lead partner of the publication takes responsibility for the openaccess process for peer-reviewed publications.

Publication in the journal of their choice:

Partners must be keeping in mind the Commission asks not to accept more than 6 month embargo (to check the publishers’ policies use http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/)

Give openaccess to all peer-reviewed publications, with a max. of 6 months embargo.

• Partners upload publications on http://arxiv.org/, or on another openaccess platform of their choice

• Warn the Coordinator so that they keep list of publication of OpenDreamKit publications updated on the project website

Data related to open access publications

The lead partner of a publication will send to the Project Manager all the data related to the peer-reviewed publication once it is given full openaccess. Data related to a publication are all the data needed to reexamine the research leading to the publication. The Project Manager will publish the data linked to publications on http://zenodo.org/. Thanks to the publications’ DOIs, the data will be linked to publications.

Openaire

Once publications are published on an openaccess platform and their data published on Zenodo, the OpenAire website will be linkage between them. All OpenDreamKit published work will be present on this webpage: https://www.openaire.eu/search/project?projectId=corda__h2020::1930bdaa9032dd5b34f25841ebf3e8d1

In order for publications and data to appear on this website, one must state when completing forms on the openaccess paltform (such as ArXiv) and Zenodo websites that the concerned work is being financed by Horizon 2020 project number 676541.

Project discussions

• The few private discussions (that involve for example nominative information) should occur on the relevant private mailing list (steering committee, coordination team, ...; see our contact web page).

  Please make sure any private information is encrypted, especially given that some of us use gmail.

• Fine grained public discussions should go on github issues, with notices to the appropriate teams and persons.

• When an important such discussion is started, a notice shall be sent to participants@opendreamkit.org.

Design goals:

• As much as possible of the discussions is public, centralized, easily searchable, linkable, etc.

• People can keep a broad eye view on action happening in other work packages, without being flooded by e-mail / notices.

Sharing and collaborating on documents

You can use this repository (or that of the web page when relevant) to collaborate on public documents. There is a subdirectory for each work package.

Private documents can be shared using the private repositories of the relevant body:

• https://github.com/OpenDreamKit/Steering
• https://github.com/OpenDreamKit/Site-leaders # Do we need this one?
• https://github.com/OpenDreamKit/Coordinator
• https://github.com/OpenDreamKit/Coordination
• https://github.com/OpenDreamKit/Advisory
• https://github.com/OpenDreamKit/Participants

Progress tracking

Each ODK task and deliverable is modelled by a public github issue. They are accessible from the sidebar of our web page. Furthermore each deliverable is attached to a milestone for tracking its deadline (Month xxx of the project).

The purpose of those issues is:

• To keep track of our progress, both for ourselves, but also for outsiders and for our EU reviewers.

• To host discussions

A first draft of each issue was created automatically using the metadata produced in Proposal/final.pdata. It should be further edited and maintained. The issue should be assigned to whoever will be leading it, in addition to the work package leader.

By convention, we use the first comment on the issue as a description of that issue (github is missing an explicit notion of issue description). It should contain and be continuously updated with:

• a description of the task (taken from the proposal) or deliverable
• a brief status overview
• crosslinks to the corresponding tasks/deliverables

• todo list, sketch of plan, references to relevant resources on the web, @mentions of people that could/should be involved.

  Whenever possible, this includes creating issues/tickets on the tracking systems of the relevant systems.

For examples, see #50, #87, #72.

Alternatively, when natural, the issue can be a brief pointer to an issue of the relevant software where the actual discussion happens. In this case, only ODK specific info (link to task, delivery date, status report, ...) needs to be on the issue.

Submitting a deliverable

Steps for the deliverable lead

• Edit the github issue description (i.e. its first comment) to give an overview (think abstract of a paper) of the deliverable. This information will be included at the beginning of the report.

  • What was the original goal.

  • How it fits within the overall ODK picture.

  • Where the work started from.

  • What precisely is the deliverable, and was achieved during the project, clarifying the contribution of the ODK participants and of the community.

  • A brief view on applications, further outcomes, current activities, future plans.

  The distinction between what was done before, for, and after the deliverable should be strictly unambiguous.

  This description should be self-contained. Still, it's recommended to enrich it with cross links as appropriate. In particular add links for all issues on the different component trackers (trac, ...) that have been worked on to achieve the deliverable. The link label/context should be explanatory: the reader should not need to follow the link to know what additional information it provides.

  If this gets too long (say more than one page), the details can be left to the report itself.

• Double check the deliverable metadata is up to date:

  • Leader (as specified by the person the issue is assigned to), participants, and sites involved.
  • Due and delivery date, milestone.
  • Estimate of the number of PM's that were put to achieve the deliverable.
  • Link to the relevant ODK task(s) and reciprocally.
  • (when times come): link to the report and presentation slides.

• A report should be written, in LaTeX, and in WPX/DX.Z/report.tex, using our style file. You can initialize the report file and copy the relevant style files with:

  make WPX/DX.Z/report.pdf

  Rerunning this command later will update the style files if needed and recompile the report.

  See the existing reports for further examples.

  The github issue description is semi-automatically included in the report. To fetch it from github, run the following command from ODK's main repository (no worry if this step fails for you; the coordinator will anyway run it before submitting the deliverable):

  DIR=WPX/DX.Z rm $DIR/report.pdf $DIR/github-issue-description*; make $DIR/github-issue-description.tex $DIR/report.pdf

  (requires PyGithub and PyYAML: pip install PyGithub PyYAML).

  You can then commit the updated github issue description and pdf with:

  cp $DIR/report.pdf $DIR/report-final.pdf; git add -f $DIR/github-issue-description $DIR/report-final.pdf; git commit -m "basename $DIR: updated github issue description and report pdf" $DIR/github-issue-description $DIR/report-final.pdf; cp $DIR/report-final.pdf /tmp

  The report shall be self-contained. Indeed, the deliverable will be evaluated based upon its version submitted on the EU portal without retrieving other resources. Links have no legal value, since there is no guarantee that the referenced material will remain unchanged. One may typically want to add relevant material as appendix (e.g. snapshots of software documentation, websites, or other relevant documents); see e.g. WP5/D5.1/report.tex or WP2/D2.1/report.tex.

  The use of pictures and other visual material is strongly recommended.

• Defining authorship is tricky, as most deliverable involve close collaboration with the community, and the report is often written by a subset of the contributors. Let's use the following simple rule of thumb: the authors of the report should include all persons funded by ODK that contributed non trivially. Not including outsiders in the author list is reasonable, as the report is about the contribution of ODK.

• Request early feedback, review, and final proofreading of the report

  • by the work package leader
  • by the coordinator (coordinator@opendreamkit.org)
  • by whoever else you may think is relevant

  Plan ahead, as this will take a couple days!

• Write a blog post in ODK's news

• Send a notice to participants@opendreamkit.org

Steps for the coordinator

• Go to the root dir of the main OpenDreamKit repository

• Edit the Makefile to add the deliverable

  Run make to automatically download the github description and build the report

• Proofread the pdf

• Commit it as report-final.pdf

• Add a link to the report in the github description

• Submit the PDF on the EU portal:

  • login

  • go to My Projects, Manage Project, Continuous Reporting Data, Deliverables.

  • Uploading a pdf used to fail for me with firefox (Nicolas). A workaround was to wrap the pdf in a zip file.

• Close the issue on github

Organizing a workshop

• Create an issue to discuss the organization of the workshop (choosing the date, ...)
• Propose potential dates with potential participants using Framadate/Doodle or any likewise tool -> Send a first mail to participants@opendreamkit.org / community@opendreamkit.org announcing the plan to organize the workshop.
• Decide the date as early as possible (at least 2 months before workshop) -> send a second mail when date is fixed
• Build the agenda thanks to the related github issue (Coordination Team and the organiser create the agenda for a steering committee meeting)
• Send the agenda and an invitation to the event to all participants
• Announce the workshop on ODK's blog; see e.g. https://opendreamkit.org/2018/06/20/Hamburg-DisseminationWorkshop-SteeringMeeting/
• Use the repository https://github.com/OpenDreamKit/OpenDreamKit.github.io/tree/master/meetings to host the web page and public documents about each meeting
• Run regular oral status reports
• Prepare a written report
• Set up a survey at the end of each workshop to know how the next ones can be improved
• Refer the workshop on the website (http://opendreamkit.org/follow/ -> reports) and create a link to your workshop minutes

For ODK, but also for all of those that are watching with hope over our shoulders, it's important to write useful reports on our work during the workshops. To be productive, we should write those reports collaboratively and on the fly.

Suggested approach: initialize the report with the list of projects, and put it on a collaborative pad (e.g. hackmd). Then, during each status report, display the report on the screen, and ask everybody to take lives notes both on the plan and what's done, directly in a synthetic project-by-project form. The goal is to have a couple paragraphs per projects, with links to the end results. And an overall debriefing.

Organization of official meetings

• The agenda must be

  • Day 1: test (mock presentation). This should be the exact same setup as on the day of the meeting (day 3). But without the EU reviewers.

  • Day 2: project meetings

  • Day 3: official review with

    • 1/2 hour to 1 hour: general presentation
    • presentation of each work package (10 minutes each)
    • deliverable presentation

• (Project Manager) Send official e-mail invitations 20 days in advance to all the meeting participants, with the agenda. Those e-mails are to be kept for later audits (proving that the attendance was necessary).

• (Project Manager) Prepare a signature sheet to collect attendance (to be kept for later audits).

• (Project Manager) In the appropriate git repository, prepare for each site, a template file for the progress report, and request all partners to fill in the file in advance.

• (Project Manager) Make sure that all the support material (e.g. slides of progress reports, ...) is available in advance (e.g. posted online), linked from the agenda, and read by all participants before the meeting. This way it is sufficient to scan quickly through them during the test, stopping only if some point raises a discussion.

• (Project Manager) Set up a pad (e.g. on framapad) or/and a chat room (e.g. gitter or use the one in framapad) for collaborative editing of the minutes during the meeting. Initialize the pad with the agenda, and links to all supporting material. After the meeting, move the content of the pad into a file in the relevant git repository for later editing. Whenever appropriate, make this file accessible online.

• Remote participation: For meetings of 4-5 people, RPC-based video conferences as above can possibly do the job. For a larger number of people, this does not seem to scale. Here are some recommendations:

  • Request all participants to have a wired access (not wifi).

  • Plan for a backup solution so that participants can join by plain phone.

  • Renater's Rendez Vous might be a good option as it is supposed to provide a bridge with phone lines. However, at this point (February 2016), only the latest development version of firefox is supported.

  • Explore webcast solutions as an alternative to peer-to-peer video conference, so that at least remote participants can follow what's going on.

Recommendations of Collaborative software

• Chat: http://gitter.im
• Video conferences: http://appear.in, http://hubl.in, or https://rendez-vous.renater.fr/
• Temporary collaborative text editing: framapad.org
• Polls: http://framadate.org
• Anonymous votes: http://adoodle.org
• Surveys: http://limesurvey.org
• Whiteboard?