HIPPartners

From Evoio

HIP is supported by various partners.

Contents 1 Stakeholder statements 1.1 NESCent 1.2 BioSync 1.3 iPlant

Stakeholder statements

We asked for stakeholders to express expectations in November 2011 as part of the Leadership Team's planning, specifically:

• what outcomes are expected from the HIP project?
• to whom should the HIP LT report?
• when should the desired outcomes be completed?
• what resources will be provided to support HIP to achieve these outcomes?

NESCent

Dear Arlin, Thanks for your email. NESCent's expectations are that the outcomes, resources and timelines of the project will follow those described in the proposal that we approved. In particular we expect that the HIP project will successfully plan and execute three hackathons, that the products will be publicly available with open-source licenses and that you will perform the described follow-up activities for hackathon projects. In terms of resources, NESCent has committed to hosting the first hackathon and providing IT resources such as the mailing list and wiki, as requested in the proposal. Our understanding is that the first hackathon, on data resources, will occur at NESCent in the winter-spring of 2012.

Our "Reporting Requirements for NESCent" document (you should have received a copy after the initial acceptance of your proposal) outline the requirements for reporting, including written reports after each meeting and notification about products from the working group. We understand that the hackathon model does not allow you to specify the products in advance.

If you anticipate changes in the timing or activities of the group please contact us. If you are considering new outcomes that would require additional resources, we will require a formal change of scope request. Let us know if you have further questions.

Yours, Joel

Joel Kingsolver Acting Associate Director of Informatics

BioSync

1. Outcomes expected from HIP project:
   • New software interfaces that make interoperability happen between large phylogenetic and biodiversity resources. This seems to be the major product we have the chance to deliver, and if we really focus on that I think we can succeed. By software interface, I mean anything new on front-end user interactions with web resources (like a UI that can integrate TreeBASE with TolWeb and also "see" data repositories or image collections like GenBank or EOL), or on the back-end interoperability (eg code that connects TreeBASE to Dryad data, even if its not yet made user friendly with a new UI). I have a preference for new functionality that benefits the broader user/consumer, which would mean new web tools or UI views, but recognize that there is significant back-end development that needs to occur to make that work.
   • New collaborations, grant proposals, research results that emerge from our discussions and hopefully our sucessful software development.
2. HIP LT reporting structure. Although I know this is important- I suppose we have to report to someone so we feel motivated- I actually don't really care so much about this item. From the BioSynC perspective, the HIP group should remain active as long as we are producing great stuff, and should disband as soon as novelty, creativity, success start to fade. Reporting structure is secondary in that regard.
3. Completion of outcomes: deadlines. The hackathon structural core of HIP should set the completion deadline schedule, it seems to me. For every hackathon, there should be as much pre-meeting activity as possible (difficult I know), and then the hackathon product(s) should be pushed to completion either at the meeting or with a well-orchestrated push following closely after the hackathon.
4. Resources available from BioSynC. BioSynC committed the items pasted below in our letter of collaboration, and those remain valid. In addition, there are a number of grant proposals and initiatives that involve phylogenetics and EOL data structure work that might be timed appropriately to complement HIP efforts. Also, I should note that the focus on involving EOL directly in our sponsored hackathon is less of a criterion than when I wrote this, as EOL still is not able to provide any structured data. Until they do, involving EOL in real interop will be problematic (although there is an EOL API that is moderately useful). From my original letter:
   1. First, I am able to serve on the working group itself to help with organization and hackathon design.
   2. Second, I can commit to paying for attendance at one or more hackathons for programmers working with our group, at least two person-trips, possibly more. I am able to cosponsor a hackathon and commit up to $10,000 for one, with a particular but not exclusive interest in hacking on visualization or interoperability with EOL.
   3. Finally, we can offer our meeting venue and facilities in Chicago free of charge if that would be useful.

iPlant