HIP LT Meetings

From Evolutionary Interoperability and Outreach
Jump to: navigation, search

Meta-issues

Meeting process

Links to writings on virtual meetings and virtual teams:

Other resources

Face to face meetings

Inaugural F2F Meeting

HIP LT meeting, NESCent, Jan 19-21

Leadership team @NESCent

Day 1 presentations

Introductions and Overview

  • 9:00 NESCent introductions

Karen Cranston: Current trajectories of big projects like TreeBASE, iPlant, and ToLWeb

Other resources that came up in the discussion:

Mark Wilkinson: Hackathons: what are they, what they have and can accomplish, what works and doesn't, good practices

Enrico Pontelli: The EvoIO stack technology and its current status

Day 1 discussions

some thoughts to guide discussion

goals and motivators -- which are most important?

  • improved interoperability ("building links in an emerging network of interoperable phylogenetic resources")
  • world domination, impact (e.g., penetration of "stack" technologies)
  • providing growth experiences to participants (skills, networking, successes)
  • exemplifying good practices in scientific data-sharing

Hackathon conceptions differ along the following dimensions, relative to what has been traditional at NESCent:

dimension traditional alternative
Edginess encourage edgy, creative projects that result in demo software encourage incremental practical fixes to production code
Spontaneity organizers only choose participants; participants choose projects usingopen-space principles organizers coordinate the hackathon toward a single over-arching goal
Impact horizon focus on long-term community-wide impact of promoting best practices in interop focus on short-terms gains for users and stakeholders

group discussion

    • Need to define the topics of hackathons, in terms of the order and big picture.
    • Need also to meet the expectations of the funding entities.

Reviewing the proposal. Start from the original vision.

First concern: if we look at the first three resources mentioned in Hackathon 1, there is going to be a very different level of support and difficulty in integrating

  • Treebase is almost ready
  • Dryad is a problem because of the diversity of data
  • TolWeb might not be too hard to develop; not there already but easy

EOL has not phylogenetic content – but with a to/from API it could be done. This could be Hackathon 2 – integration of trees into EOL. EOL to decorate trees.

Hackathon 1: issue is integrating API and data formats. We could use NeXML as the format. The hackathon could also indicate what is missing in the standards.

Question: lots of biodiversity applications, metagenomics integration; big application domain.

Thinking how the tools to be built can handle these data. Taxonomy is a resource that people use – can they be interested in this?

Hackathon 1 is also a bit vague – the problem is that we do not talk about what we want to do with data. Vague. Maybe Hackathon 1 should be more focused, and then hackathon 2 not on a single project but generalize Hackathon 1 to other data sources.

Question: Is the dealing with the data resources the main problem or is the problem something else? People don’t use TreeBase extensively so what is the buy-in from the community? For example, if we look at the the enumeration of resources – many data resources are unfunded, they may disappear, they have little use, closed source, isolated. So the impact could be limited. There is risk. May fail. Other worry – what’s the use case? What are people trying to solve?

Maybe we should validate NeXML implementations instead. Ensure that all the implementations are correct and interoperable. Identify packages that don’t use NeXML and make it easier to use (e.g., converters).

The developer of one of those pieces of software is in the room and we create the shim services.

If we stick to the current structure of the proposal we get nice examples but perhaps no definite production-level code. Hackathon 3 is really the only one that directly produce something for the user – edgy environment for the users. E.g., EOL has no phylogenetics. EOL wants an environment sit between Tolweb and EOL to add phylogenies. So it would be nice to have a visual environment that can go and grab stuff from phylogenetic resources. It not only fetches the trees, but also fetch different resources for the decoration of the trees (EOL and others).

Idea: identify a standard for the visualization of phylogenies (so that different visualization tools use the same ontology/notation).

One approach is to define the use cases as the target point and then walk backward from there. First hackathon should be naming; identifiers is the main problem to be solved if we want interoperability;

R packages is another target – many different packages that do not play well together (read trees, visualize trees, manipulate trees).


Discussion points about different conceptions of hackathon

DIMENSION EDGINESS: 1. creative projects for demo/proof of concept software (that might not go anyhwer) 2. incremental fixing to production code (e.g., the round code of Mark)

SPONTANEOUS 1. open space principles 2. coordinate towards a well defined goal

IMPACT 1. long term community wide impact, promote best practices 2. short term gains for users


Lets go back to big pictures 1. Improve interoperability 2. Penetrate the stack technology 3. Grow participants (train, skills, network) 4. Demonstrate god practices in data sharing

Need to rank these aspects. 1 is the most important overarching goal. Just add edges among resources. 3 – is important and can be made happen no matter what.

Two views; one is to just establish connections between tools; maybe pick the most popular tools and work on them. The alternative is to create a momentum by getting as many developers and get them to adopt.

Shall we find the root causes for the lack of connections? Why new genome formats where adopted? They were good formats and it was imposed by the main repository. There are analysis tools for reconciliation, and visualization tools for reconciliations, but they do not talk to each other. Because there is no standard for exchange of data.

So why the links are not there? Awareness is a big problem. Constraints – nexus is used by many tools and this is an imposition

network

E.g., Bio::phylo is an intercoversion between nexml and nexus. Make nexml the common language to interchange between data formats.

Day 2 Discussions

agenda for Day 2: Hackathon planning

  • 9:00: review from yesterday
    • discussion from afternoon
    • the emerging network
    • types of hackathons
  • 10:00: continue with grand strategy
    • strategic goals
    • 3-hackathon plan (can be open-ended)
  • 1:30 decision for the first hackathon
  • 2:00 plan for the first hackathon
    • Clarification of topic and objective
    • Clarification of duties and distribution of tasks
    • Publicity and project tracking
    • Broader plan for advertising
  • 5:00: Shuttles back to hotel

reflections on previous day, what's important

Fish Mark:

  • keep the eye on the big picture
  • keep the eye on the applications and the users
  • keep the eye on funding

Karen:

  • Users and developers in the room; sometime it works sometime it does not
  • If we have hackathon on a specific target, then we need community engagement in what the target is
  • Common complaint from users – hackathons don’t really address immediate needs of the users. Can we do something that can have an immediate value to the users?

Brian

  • We are trying to convince a large number of users to adopt something new (new format, new standards)
  • To be successful we need a killer-app. It has to be slick and efficient. We are not really talking about what is the key app – we need to think about a major problem, slick that we are going to solve.

Sergey

  • We are trying to do the right thing but everyone is coming in from a different view. Risk of not accomplishing much
  • We need a strong leadership perspective: the core of the LT should push a specific idea.
  • Also agree on the killer-app and there should be also something that target strong funding opportunities

Rutger

  • Deja-vu from evoInfo working group (but with a different group of people and different types of expertise)
  • Are we still dancing around the same issue that has not been solved?
  • Like the BabelPhysh idea; it could be very useful if easy to use; especially in the context of developing workflows
  • It is not pushing us to world domination but it could be one step forward.

Semantic Mark

  • BabelPhysh is not the right solution. Centralizing is not a good solution.
  • We do not have sufficient access to existing resources or code bases to get them to do the right thing by themselves
  • We are taking a sideway approach to introducing a new and better standard; uncomfortable
  • If we cast it as an intermediary step towards the introduction of a new standard, and then develop new standards with its tools, we may get an easier acceptance; we need to see what makes a new API easy to use.

Hilmar

  • Long history with Hackathons and they have been enjoyable and they followed all a similar pattern – open space model, narrow the focus only in a limited way; they were coherent but open.
  • At the same time, they are cumulative; they do not necessarily take us to products that people will follow up on and widely use
  • This working group is not a continuation of NESCent Hackathons program, this is an unrestricted working group that can change the model; we can take new approaches and new directions.
  • keep in mind how these standards will be adopted
  • reduce the barriers to allow the use of the stack; the stack is good but nobody is using it. It is simple engineering at this point
  • e.g., how to we get RaXML to use our stack? there are barrier in the way of adoption.

Arlin

  • Two goals in the Hackathons; long term solution of interoperability and train people/build network. The second goal has been successful, but we have not made strides in the first one.
  • We need intermediate strategies for moving forward; finding the killer-app, following the money are important aspects.
  • Rethinking the Hackathon model from open space to a more top-down model with a dominating agenda is something that we should follow - that is why we have a LT team with diverse backgrounds.

Further Discussion

  • What makes a standard successful?
    • people must see the value
    • are the big players involved?
  • Need to find excitement in the evoIO stack; interoperability is an idea, not a need
  • Maybe it would be better to build a big thing in the middle that harnesses all the data resources. Maybe a Universal Adapter?
  • Remember that NEXUS failed because it was not expressive enough to say everything needed (and people started hacking it for this reason). The stack addresses this problem. This also means that a project that does round-trip of data will not be particularly useful (we will loose information as they cannot be captured by the existing formats).
  • We often think about interoperability in terms of data providers/consumers; we can create an eco-system for tool writers (analysis, data management, visualizers) - if you write software according to certain standards, by default it will immediately be able to talk to many many other systems. Very compelling vision. That is why people use Mesquite - it is an eco-system where you can bring your data and do lots of things with it.
  • Perhaps we should be the ones selecting the winner and then target the most used tools/repositories to make an impact.
  • hackathon should produce reusable code. Don't focus only on the research question.
  • Taverna and Galaxy are important lessons - they solve problem but not many people use them. How do we convince the community to use them? Again, PAUP was popular because you could do so much in it.
  • Technologies in the stack are standards (W3C based). They allow access to use OTS tools.
  • Use existing environments (Galaxy or whatever) and use them to solve an existing problem (e.g., reconcile tree problem). That will attract attention.
  • Who do we target? Developers or Users? This is tough. The community of developers is very fluid.
  • We are talking about taking files from format A to B. With journal requirements, we are seeing greater need of depositing files into repositories. Thus, for users NeXML is nice, it captures data and experiments and place them in a repository. Dryad is easy (no need for annotation), but what about TreeBase? Or even Dryad in a way that is reusable. Can we address that issue?
    • good idea; opportunistic about looking for an impact
    • but Dryad accepts everything, no community standards, thus the bar is very low
    • there are on the other hand journals that will require TreeBase archiving. Furthermore, there is an incentive in data sharing; if the data are reusable, you may get citations - so there is an incentive to go beyond Dryad
  • We need to tap into what users want to do. Interface phylogenies with other types of data. E.g., for education.
  • A MIAPA support seems to be a good idea, it is something users may want to have (e.g., keep the parameters, the accession names).
  • Visualization programmers may see the value of NeXML as they can maintain annotations in the file, useful for visualization.
  • Consider a matrix of languages and components of the stack
    • NeXML: ++ support in Perl, Java; some support in Ruby; low support in JS and in Python; Need to fill the table with ++
    • Programming foundations are necessary for providers to serve NeXML data

Going back to the root of the problem

  • what is the need for web services and phylogenies? We need to repeat the success of the Phylomatic approach - the creation of the big synthetic tree.
    • publications are filtered inot APWeb 3, and Phylomatic can get the trees to the world
    • the creation of the big tree in APWeb 3 is only for plants - it is not repeated for other domains
    • the APWeb 3 is successful because it is very comprehensive

A proposed statement of principles guiding strategy

  1. we want to explore targeted, coordinated hackathons (not open-space anything-goes hackathons); we accept the likely reduction in edginess
  2. we want to improve on achievement of tangible outcomes by having an end-point goal for each hackathon that is completed by the last day (not by having followup as per the previous plan)
  3. we will not simply build a technology base in the hopes that people will use it: we will be opportunistic about leveraging the potential for high-impact problems, well funded problems, and immediate challenges faced by the user community
  4. when we address an immediate challenge, we will do so using technology with long-term potential (rather than just hacking a solution).

reviewing & evaluating list of possible hackathons

First we review the projects, then there are decisions to be made

  1. Order of the projects
  2. Impact
    1. on the community
    2. on the development of the stack infrastructure
  3. External resources needed
  • Tree reconciliation problem - generalize and automate
    • extend NeXML
    • wrap-up applications in services
  • BabelPhysh
    • requires preliminary identification of the data formats
  • ToL-o-matic
    • Use Phylomatic, either using APWeb 3, or the mammals tree or the fish tree; Phylomatic is a success story, widely used.
    • Wrap Phylomatic into a web service using PhyloWS (pruning, grafting)
    • Add a name reconciliation service to validate species names submitted by the user (e.g., iPlant one)
    • Add a re-calibration service (distances)
    • Integration of the tree with other data (e.g., data from a table) - e.g., you have a table of data, extract species names, execute pruning and recalibration and then combine the tree with the other data in the table
    • Add a scripted visualization at the end to show pictures, nearest specimens, EOL links
  • MIAPA compliant submission support
    • developers (e.g., MEGA, PAUP, Raxml) to add support in their programs to generate MIAPA metadata (part of NeXML or as a separate file)
    • or annotation tool that allow to manually add the information to existing files (e.g., as part of BabelPhysh - pop out a window asking for the missing information)
  • Tie NeXML to visualization - e.g., add to NeXML annotations that are guiding visualization (e.g., a visualization language that is embedded within NeXML)
    • People need pretty pictures to put in the paper
    • The more information we can provide in the file (e.g., not only a branch should be green, but explain why) the better
    • Move back from a desired picture to identify what are the features that are missing in NeXML to generate the figure

Rank projects according to the four criteria

  • 1. BabelPhysh:
    • Order:
    • Impact on community: ++
    • External conditions:
    • Impact on infrastructure: toolkits development for NeXML; implementation of some PhyloWS aspects;
    • Prerequisites: list of data formats, test files
  • 2. ToL-o-matic:
    • Order: could come after 4
    • Impact on community: +++
    • External conditions: benefit from big trees available
    • Impact on infrastructure: predominantly PhyloWS
    • Prerequisites:
  • 3. MIAPA compliant submission support
    • Order: after 1
    • Impact on community: +
    • External conditions: Checklist from the TDWIG meeting; could benefit from stronger language support from MIAPA
    • Impact on infrastructure:
    • Prerequisites: very high; NeXML/CDAO development; also need PhyloWS support to handle MIAPA annotations
  • 4. Vis language for NeXML
    • Order:
    • Impact on community: +++
    • External conditions:
    • Impact on infrastructure: high development for NeXML; also need some CDAO concepts
    • Prerequisites:
  • 5. Reconcile tree problem
    • Order: after 2
    • Impact on community: ++
    • External conditions:
    • Impact on infrastructure: predominantly PhyloWS; some CDAO (describe duplications, extensions, etc.)
    • Prerequisites:


administrative (not scientific) planning of the first hackathon

The material below is for historical purposes only: the live plan is here.

  • Dates:
    • February 17th: posting of all the advertisements
    • February 17th: all the invitations have been communicated
    • March 4th: deadline for applications
    • March 14th: deadline for scoring all the applications
    • April 2nd: deadline for selection of applicants
    • potentially first two weeks of June; options also at the end of July and end of August
  • Prepare advertisement
    • Mark prepares a 100-word blurb describing the event and announcing the dates for advertisements and deadlines
    • Where to Submit and Who submits:
      • Karen: NESCent newsletter
      • Hilmar: NESCent Phyloinformatics mailing list
      • Semantic Mark: OpenBio list and GMOD developers
      • Arlin: Evoidr
      • Brian: Facebook
      • Fish Mark: BioSync
      • Hilmar: EcoLog
    • Press Releases:
      • Create a "buzz" before the event (social media?); maybe a Google+ page
      • Post on Blogs (a week before the event)
        • Arlin: Rod Page's Blog
        • Brian: Dechronization
      • Develop surveys to engage community in the selection of features
      • Karen: After the Hackathon contact Robin for a press-release
    • Develop slides for presentations
    • Participate in meetings and make presentations
    • Phyloseminar online seminars
    • #phylotastic

scientific planning of first hackathon

This material is for historical purposes only. The live plan is here 1. Scoping

  • In Scope
    • Populating data store of existing trees
    • Evolution of PhyloWS to support the needs of Phylomatic
    • Taxonomic name resolution (embedding existing TNRS capacities)
    • Pruning trees and grafting species on them
    • Branch length (existing methods for incorporating branch lengths)
    • Integration of data and trees (e.g., mashups) - species-wise integration
    • Display of resulting trees (using existing technologies)
    • Wrap all these existing tools as web services
    • NeXML syntax extensions if needed
    • If needed, determine methods for compressing NeXML representations
    • Simple user interface (web form)
  • Not In Scope
    • Constructing new input trees
    • New Data Generation
    • Arguing or evaluating the correctness of trees
    • Design of new TNRS systems
    • Debates about which naming system is best
    • Developing new techniques to derive branch lengths
  • Uncertain
    • Phylo-referencing
    • MIAPA annotations of the steps/provenance annotations

2. Mission Statement

  • It's PhyloTastic, 'Trees for Everyone'
  • At the First HIP Hackathon, an elite team of scientific programmers will
  • make trees accessible and computable
  • lower/remove barriers

Day 3 Discussions

Agenda: Wrap up, action items, closing thoughts

  • 9:00: Leftovers from previous day
    • another walk through the tol-o-matic project
  • 10:30 - administrative issues
    • wiki - organization and up-date
    • publicity and advertising
    • confidentiality
  • 11:30 to 2:00 -- remaining issues
    • strategy for HIP to become a bigger or longer-term group, develop its own brand and image, embark in other projects
    • funding and other opportunities
  • 2:00 Departures to airport begin (Enrico's flight at 16:00, Semantic Mark 17:25, Sergei 18:30)

Administrative Issues

  • Enrico will create a Wiki page for the hackathon
  • Karen will set up a mailing list for the participants to the Hackathon (HIP_hackathon)
  • Mark will create a blurb for the event
  • Brian will create on Googledoc an invitation letter for the hackathon (invited participants)
  • Rutger will create on Googledoc an open call for the hackathon (open call for participants)
  • Arlin will be in charge of dates and scheduling

Review of the ToL-o-matic Project

  • Project statement:
Develop a collection of services to extract a subtree (specified by tips) from any large species tree, and to provide branch lengths, provenance annotations, and some other useful annotations.

whiteboard

Phylotastic flowchart1.jpg

Teleconferences

April 8, 2013

11:00 am EST. Present: Arlin, Enrico, Karen, Rutger, Brian O, Brian S.

Agenda:

  • followups to Tucson hackathon
  • update on GSOC
  • the 3rd hackathon that we promised to have but have not funded yet
  • major funding

Reflections on hackathon 2

  • cleaning up front page of wiki would take 1 or 2 hours
  • doubts about suitability of some projects
    • making up new standards
  • more lateral movement than forward movement?
  • inexperience of participants a factor?
  • lesson: more guidance needed
    • allow critiques of pitches in whole-group discussion

Update on GSOC

  • NESCent will know today whether we have that funding

The 3rd hackathon

  • Do we need it? (yes)
  • Focus on use cases? (probably better to clean up the core service?)
  • Can we afford it? (About $4000 left)
  • A few key people in a room, or supported for a month?
  • Consensus seems to be for a code sprint with a small select group
    • Could it be done remotely, or with some members remotely? Would save money. (difference of opinion here)
    • When? End of May or early June to work towards an August grant deadline.
    • Which people: Naim, Rutger, Karen?

Major funding

  • programs and schedules:
    • reconciliotastic NIH (multiple deadlines yearly)
    • phylotastic ABI (August 13?)
  • partnering: what expertise or technology do we need partners to bring?
    • production server: e.g., CIPRES, iPlant
    • naming, taxonomy: e.g., iPlant,
    • software development: e.g., Enrico,
    • source trees: g.e., ToLWeb, OToL, TreeBASE
    • standardizing with partners: EvoInfo & HIP leaders (NeXML, CDAO etc)
    • subject-matter experts for any use-case target:
      • e.g., phylogeography expert
      • reconciliation all the trees in treebase: reconciliation expert, TreeBASE

Action items

  • All: response to polls soon, please, so that we can make decisions
  • Enrico: schedule next meeting for 2 to 3 weeks from now
  • Arlin: assess availability for May-June code sprint

December 14, 2012

12:00 pm EST. Present all but Mark, Rutger and Brian, who had competing demands on their time.

Here are my notes with asterisks (*) to indicate action items:

  1. organizing travel and meeting logistics (Naim)
    • Tina Lee has the roster and intends to send out travel info on Monday.
    • Rooms for lodging and meeting are booked.
    • iPlant's IT support staff will be ready for the event.
  2. Consider ways to engage participants
    • putting everyone on the hip@nescent.org email list (Karen has done this today)
    • advertising a targets list on the wiki (Karen did this during the meeting)
    • (*) Arlin sent Karen a few more names for the list (folks who aren't coming but want to stay informed)
    • (*) Arlin will send an intro message message later today (welcome, github, etc)
    • (*) Karen is going to advertise wiki to the participants
    • (*) all LTs are encouraged to engage with participants
    • (*) all LTs mark your calendars for pre-hackathon discussions week of Jan 14 to 18.
    • (*) Brian O'Meara will update the Google+ circle
    • (*) Enrico will explore the option for a daily public hangout
  3. scheduling a January meeting
    • Arlin will doodle you on this, aiming for Jan 7 to 11
  4. discussing the situation with recruiting Galaxy programmers
    • Integration was a strategic priority, and engaging the galaxy community was part of the LT's agreed-upon dissemination strategy, but galaxy-associated applicants were not in the top 25 (the reasons for that are problematic, but that's a separate issue).
    • There was some discussion about how to respond to this situation, and a second look at X, Y and Z. Of these, X is the strongest for his programming work on phylogeny and on tool integration (while Y is a core programmer and Z is more of an end user). There was disagreement about whether galaxy is popular (or, on an upward trajectory) with the phylogenetics community, whether its current popularity is relevant to our interest in using it as an integration test-bed, and whether the phylotastic components are sufficiently well developed for us an attempt at integration to be productive at this time.
    • We did not reach agreement on those issues in 15 minutes discussion. In the end, we decided not to invite any more people, in order to preserve our budget buffer of >2000$.
    • We also decided to look for future opportunities. Arlin is going to apologize to galaxy principal (for raising hopes) and try to turn this around into something positive.
  5. any other loose ends or topics arising
    • Nothing else came up, other than Karen's request for you all to look at the new cleared-out wiki. We want a welcoming space for new participants to develop ideas.

November 30, 2012

12:00 pm EST

  1. Attendees: Fish Mark, BrianS, BrianO, Naim, Enrico, Mike, Arlin, Karen
  2. Meeting started with a quick check to verify who is interested in attending the meeting (one remote, everybody else present)
  3. Went down the list of applicants; made a decision to extend invitation to all people with a score of 2.5 or better
  4. Decided also to try to focus on bringing some new people (e.g., graduate students) in; there are some strong candidates in the applicants list
  5. Tasks:
    1. Enrico will revise the invitation letter
    2. Arlin and Enrico will review budget
    3. Attempt to schedule a followup teleconference on Tuesday morning to finalize the invitations.

October 29, 2012

12:30 pm EDT

  • present: Mark, Mike, Brian S., Arlin, Naim,
  • absent: Karen, Brian O, Enrico, Rutger

Agenda

  1. open call text for final approval
  2. application for final approval
  3. dissemination strategy
  4. review of review process for applicants

Edits to do

  • AS: update links to include PDF
  • NM: take away exclamation point from open call & application
  • NM: fix bullets

Arlin will email everyone when edits are done.

Dissemination

  • All (especially)
    • Facebook (groups and personal pages) (Brian S. lead contact)
    • Twitter (#phylotastic hashtag) (Naim, Mark W.)
    • Google+
  • Not assigned:
    • EcoLog
    • OpenBio
  • Arlin:
    • Evoldir
    • Ask Dave Clement to do Galaxy & GMOD
  • Brian S
    • R-sig-phylo
  • Mark W
    • BioSync
  • Naim
    • iPlant
  • Karen
    • TDWG
    • NESCent newsletter
    • wg-phyloinformatics at NESCENT
    • HIP
    • OToL
    • Global names

Review process

  • concerns about raising expectations and then saying no to people because we don't have enough seats (Mark, Arlin)
  • each person will do 3X/9 applications, where X is the number of applicants to review.
  • there is a single review criterion, which is likelihood to contribute importantly to a successful hackathon outcome
    • 3 = We can be confident that this person will contribute importantly to a successful hackathon
    • 2 = There are some doubts about how much this person will contribute to a successful outcome
    • 1 = This person is not likely to contribute importantly to a successful outcome

October 22, 2012

present: Arlin, Karen, Enrico, Fish Mark, Brian S, Brian O, Naim absent: Rutger, Mike

Agenda

  1. general plan for launching recruitment phase
  2. diversity component of recruitment plan
  3. any other decisions about budget, logistics, or schedule

Action items (due Monday 29th unless otherwise noted)

  • BS - compile list of venues to distribute electronic call for participation
  • KC - list of women & minority candidates to target personally
  • KC - get feedback on draft advertisement (Wednesday)
  • AS - write up and distribute notes for this meeting
  • all - mark calendars for Oct 29 meeting at 12:30 EDT
  • all - mark calendars for Nov 16 to Nov 29 reviewing period

Notes

  1. general plan
    • work on recruitment materials as planned previously (editors take note)
    • release call for applications October 29
    • meet again on Oct 29 to finalize
  2. diversity component of recruitment
    • make advertisement and application less technical, less intimidating
      • remove "expertise", replace with "skills" or "knowledge" as appropriate
    • disseminate via Karen
    • personally contact designated list of women & minority candidates
    • add "encouraged to apply" language to all materials
  3. any other decisions about budget, logistics or schedule
    • schedule
      • application deadline is Nov 16
      • send invites Nov 30, ask for commitment by Dec 5 or 12 (allows time to organize travel)
    • reviewing process
      • takes place Nov 16 to Nov 30
      • 3-fold coverage: each LT does 3X/9 applications, where X = number of applicants
      • performance criteria are collaborativeness, enthusiasm for project, and technical skills & knowledge
      • performance score is 3-valued based on perceived likelihood of contributing importantly to outcome of hackathon

September 27, 2012

present: Arlin, Karen, Mike Enrico, Rutger, Fish Mark, Brian S, Brian O, Naim

Agenda

  1. decisions: scheduling teleconferences for 2021
    1. October: Monday 22nd, 11:30am EDT
    2. November: Friday 30th, 12:00pm EST
    3. December: Friday 14th, 12:00pm EST
  2. Logistics for Second Hackathon
    1. information: Naim
      • Budget: iPlant exploring budget for the event - discussion in the next few days
      • Dates: First choice is January 28th to February 1st; Second choice is January 21st to January 25th
      • Location: Bio5 for the 28th date; may need alternative facilities for the other date
    2. decision: hackathon #2 will take place at BIO5 Jan 28 to Feb 1
  3. Advertisement for Second Hackathon:
    1. Focus on three main items: Core operations, Building capacity for use cases, Flashy demos and apps
    2. Design new advertisement and application form based on materials from before
    3. Make advertisement inclusive of women and underrepresented minorities; de-emphasize technical aspect, emphasize learning experience
  4. Tentative schedule for hackathon preparations:
    1. October 22nd: Select mailing lists, trigger advertisements
    2. November 20th: Close application process
    3. December 1st: Complete selection of participants
    4. December 15th: Complete the travel arrangements
    5. January 28th: Start of second hackathon

Action Items

  • Naim - get back to LT with results from iPlant budget projection
  • everyone - add dates for telecons, hackathon to calendar
  • Karen - first draft of ad
  • Brian (2), Enrico, Mark, Naim - editors for ad
  • Rutger - will revise old application (may need to get this from Karen)
  • Brian S, Arlin S, Naim - editors for application
  • Karen: will NESCent be arranging travel?
  • Arlin: prepare 15-min presentation on phylotastic

August 21, 2012

present: Arlin, Karen, Mike, Enrico, Rutger, Mark W, Brian

Agenda

  1. scheduling monthly LT telecons for the fall
  2. securing funding to complete our budget and expand the project (Rutger)
  3. planning the next hackathon
  4. outreach-promotion-publicity strategy (web site, social media, videos)
  5. recruiting more LT members

Minutes

  1. skip fall meeting scheduling until have all LT members
  2. past six months have been an extraordinary success, many tangible products and lots of momentum
  3. funding proposals
    1. Rutger: submitted working group proposal to CESAB (French equivalent of NCEAS) to work on semantic annotation of model parameters; first reviews due on October; budget includes travel costs and part of postdoc salary
    2. Rutger: writing proposal with Mark Wilkinson to European COST (Collaboration in Science and Technology) program
    3. Brian O'Meara submitting NSF ABI proposal for DateLife
    4. Mark Westneat: trying to raise money for BioSynC; would include funds meetings and hackathons (and some funds already allocated over next year or two)
  4. in original NESCent proposal, had enough funds for hackathon (NESCent + iPlant + BioSynC) and aimed to raise funds for third hackathon. Would need to think about submitting proposals soon for have funds for third hackathon.
  5. second hackathon
    1. have changed direction somewhat from original proposal; need to make sure to check with funding partners about changes to original proposals for second hackathon
    2. general agreement about continuing with Phylotastic framework
    3. possible foci: integration; use cases; production-scale services
    4. also want to think about working with other partners (e.g. those working with taxonomic names)
    5. also things we have not done: grafting, annotating, integrating other data sources
    6. needs to be some novelty in second hackathon, not just finishing what we've started
    7. need to make sure we have sufficient focus on back-end components (e.g. tree store) that enable flashy interfaces
    8. balance between focus on product and community-building aspects of event; these affect advertising and recruitment, especially in terms of getting diversity among participants
    9. location and timing; BioSynC is available, but note Chicago weather if we push this too late in year; Arizona would be ideal for late fall / early winter
    10. participants: will send out open call and then forward open call to people who have key skills or in order to increase diversity
  6. discussion of new LT team members

Action items

  • Enrico to set up Doodle poll to find time for monthly LT calls
  • Arlin to talk to iPlant re:space for second hackathon
  • Karen to start document to think about possible projects for second hackathon based on holes from first hackathon; will send to HIP list
  • Arlin to invite new LT members

June 6, 2012

present: Rutger, Arlin, Enrico

  1. maintaining momentum
    • schedule a follow-up day week of 18 to 22
    • focus on cleaning up, writing demos, paper, poster
    • schedule could look like this:
      • 11:00 am EDT group teleconference
      • 12:00 pm EDT to 4:00 pm EDT work session with hangouts
      • reconvene for 4:00 pm EDT teleconference
    • encourage groups to have hangouts
    • encourage groups to plan future owrk
  2. BioVel proposal - due June 29
    • RV push for conference call with euro collaborators
    • AS thinking about status
  3. Poster
    • AS ask participants: opt in with a time commitment of 5 hours
  4. Publication
    • AS ask participants: opt in with a time commitment of 10 hours
  5. Hosts
    • finding a host that would provide funding
      • museums
      • companies
  6. Funding
    • CESAB proposal with BioVel
    • NSF workshop - Enrico is following up
    • BGI - Beijing Genome Institute - RV
      • EP getting feedback from prog officer
    • DOE (Arlin)
    • private
  7. next hackathon
    • have a mini-hackathon at Chicago using current funds from NESCent & BioSync
    • wait until we can get more funds


May 14, 2012

present: Brian, Mike, Rutger, FishMark, SemanticMark, Arlin (presiding), Enrico (recording) absent: Sergei, Hilmar

  1. followup from previous meeting - 12:05
    • github: [Rutger] organization has been set up and it seems that the majority of the participants signed up
    • dev server: [Enrico] Naim indicated
      • Willingness to provide a server with VMs for the development - but the tech support is guaranteed only during "office hours" for the duration of the hackaton; LT discussed and decided that perhaps we could focus on NESCent for the development activities
      • Willingness to provide a server for distribution/dissemination; at this time the commitment is until the end of the current funding cycle (2013), but he is confident that new funding will arrive and that will allow the commitment to be extended.
    • google+: Everyone from LT signed up in the shared circle
    • web services discussion & possible spec:
      • LT indicated that it would be ok to wait until the use cases become more concrete
      • Rutger will develop a mock-up of a typical URL and circulate it on the mailing list
    • use-cases discussion
      • Lots of exciting ideas and discussion
      • Still not enough in terms of concrete inputs and outputs [Brian follow up on this?]
  2. funding & organizing the next hackathon - 12:10
    • Arlin set up wiki page for discussion and ideas
  3. playing nice with each other - 12:25
    • discussion postponed
  4. hackathon schedule and logistics - 12:35
    • LT approved the idea of including Naim's presentation at NESCent on discovery environment from iPlant
      • Talk during lunch on Tuesday
      • HIP will cover the catering of lunch
    • Schedule
    1. Day 1 Part 1: Presentations focused on use cases/what the users want
      • 3 presentations, perhaps 2 hours
      • Karen solicit on the mailing list ideas and volunteers
      • Enable formation of teams working on each presentation - trying to engage participants (especially those that are less "hackers")
    2. Day 1 Part 2: Presentation on high level architecture and design
      • Arlin fleshes out the presentation
      • Rutger provides a demo
      • Set overall strategy and create context for group formations
    3. LUNCH
    4. Day 1 Part 3: Technical boot camp
      • topics to be decided as feedback from the participants
      • Karen set up googledoc form to collect ideas
      • Some possibilities
        • Rutger: NeXML
        • Enrico: CDAO/PhyloWS
        • Ben: creating web services [Semantic Mark contact him]
        • Helen: semantic annotations [Semantic Mark contact her]
        • Naim: taxonomic name resolution [Enrico contact him]
    5. BREAK
    6. Day 1 Part 4: Group formations
      • variation of open model; leaders pitches for the groups
    7. Day 1 Part 5: social event in a local pub
  5. Day 2 will start with group presentations to ensure that the vision is formed and focused
  6. LT face-to-face meeting to be decided on the mailing list

April 16, 2012

Agenda

  1. planning for hackathon infrastructure and logistics
    • NESCent provides coffee, network, power, etc.
    • Aaron Steele volunteered to set up a github project - Rutger expressed concern that we should set up an organization under github, not a project; He will contact Aaron to confirm.
    • iPlant is volunteering a development server; there is some concern about what that implies; will the server be supported by a staff member during the hackaton, so that it can be directly used? Are going to have a very long term server commitment (e.g., beyond the end of HIP)? Enrico will contact Naim Matasci to clarify.
    • Rutger reported on the remote participation experiment; made test with Google+ hangouts. 4 people and went fine. Also tested video conferencing Idaho and NESCent; crisp and nice. Idea is video without sound and use Google+ hangouts for people without video and for the sound. They tried with webcams and went well. Hangouts has screensharing which is useful. Google+ hangouts: someone initiates one and invite people; HIP circle; no random strangers can join. Video windows of everyone and the speaking person is maximized. Multi-way conferencing. Works well for continuous connection, update to what is happening, no need as a continuous thing. Good for smaller interactions and teams.
  1. shared design of Phylotastic
    • We had a long discussion concerning what aspects have to be resolved before the hackaton. In particular, there is concern about the need to design PhyloWS to the point that it can be used as an exchange mechanism to link the different groups at the hackaton. PhyloWS has to be formalized as being the communication method between components of the project. Need mock-ups and examples beforehand. Need to establish some criteria for the APIs, and participants need to be involved before the hackaton. Perhaps we should convene the whole group. Email to the whole group and get the discussion going. Hilmar will start conversation.
    • there was also an initial conversation about directing the formation of groups before the hackaton. What does that imply? Create topics on the wiki and allow people to start buying into the different areas and think about it. We need to get them to think about what they will work on and with whom. We decided to move the discussion to the mailing list.
  1. longer-term issues
    • Issue of funding for the next two hackatons
    • we hope that Phylotastic will be so successful to attract the attention of other funding entities
    • since the next hackaton will be at the field museum, we should enable BioSync to have a strong role in the directions it will take.
    • We decided to have meetings of the LT during the hackaton, in the evening, to start laying out the plans for the future.

Mar 14, 2012

Agenda

  1. announcements & review
    • phylotastic plan, slideshow, publicity, presentations
    • HIP activities after phylotastic (funding, next hackathon)
  2. decision about which applicants (of the timely ones) to invite to NESCent
    • screen off the remote and late applicants
    • nearly all applicants are qualified, so let's decide which ones aren't
    • take into account diversity and funding
  3. decision about phylotastic-west (Harmon, Pennell, Eastman, Brown)
  4. decision about late applicants (Alfaro, Frieden, Tran)
  5. any other decisions
    • draft & send invitation letter
    • draft & send decline letter
    • track accepted invitations, add to email list, wiki permissions
    • create participants wiki with photos
    • next telecons - use for LT, or participants?

Feb 17, 2012

Present: Arlin, Rutger, Karen, Hilmar, Michael, Rutger, Brian

Agenda

  1. scheduling HIP LT telecons
  2. review of the Phylotastic plan
  3. final preparation for making the open call
  4. group decision on criteria & process for review of applications
  5. phylosoc deadline Mar 9
  6. other business, as time allows
  7. overall hackathon structure - how do we approach this very different structure both before and at the hackathon?

Minutes

  • deadline for applications is March 4
  • will want next teleconference soon after March 4 to review applications; need to have this done by March 11
  • how much time do we need to review applications?
  • plan to have application review on Wednesday, March 14 at 1:00 EST
  • everyone needs to have applications scored by Monday the 12th; need to set aside time that week
  • need to have all participants selected & confirmed by April 4
  • successful applications will have until April 2 to accept applications
  • what happens if there are gaps when we get the list of applicants? may need to invite additional people; may want to do a pre-review after March 4
  • send out open call early next week (Monday)
  • discussed criteria for review process

Action items

  • Arlin to confirm date for next telecon with the Marks and Sergei
  • Enrico to set up Doodle poll to schedule April and May teleconferences
  • Brian to draft short paragraph for the invitations to apply
  • Rutger to gather email addressees for invitees
  • Karen to set up email list for participants
  • Hilmar and Karen will pre-review applicants after March 4 deadline to identify any gaps
  • Arlin to finalize presentation; Hilmar to review
  • Karen to modify application form to add questions about specific skills

December 16, 2011

Agenda

  1. Mark's relocation to Spain - need to raise the issue but do not need to make any decision
  2. Preparing for the January f2f meeting.
    1. solidify good working relationships as a team
    2. develop a clear plan for the first hackathon (2012 spring or summer)
    3. clarify expectations (as needed) about type and amount of work each of us will do
    4. develop a provisional strategy for the whole 2-year 3-hackathon project
    5. commit to agreed-upon practices for info management, publicity, and project tracking
  3. Report on the PRF board meeting (Rutger)

Minutes present: Arlin, Enrico, Karen, Rutger, Sergei, Semantic Mark (notes by Karen, at least for first part of call; revised and completed by Enrico)

  • Semantic Mark's move to Spain: how does this change things?
    • Increased participant cost not so much an issue from NESCent's perspective
    • hackathon in Spain? Mark W will think about finding a co-sponsor in Spain once he gets over there
  • First f2f meeting in January
    • Discussion of what should be the agenda of the meeting and what preparatory steps are needed
      • The meeting should aim at organizing the first hackathon and lay the foundations for the successive ones
      • Proposal indicates Data Resources as the topic of the first hackathon - but the group agrees that, with the full LT on board, we should spend some time reviewing the proposal and discussing whether we want to have a different order of activities in the hackathon. We will limit the discussion to half day.
        • Everyone should re-read the proposal before the meeting
        • Everyone should also start identifying potential participants associated to the main topics of the hackathons
  • Agenda for the meeting
    • Day 1:
      • the morning is dedicated to brief introductions from the LT members - many of us have not met in person;
      • the rest of the morning is dedicated to some informational presentations; possible talks:
        • Hackathons: what are they, what they have and can accomplish, what works and doesn't, good practices
        • The EvoIO stack technology and its current status
        • Current trajectories of big projects like TreeBase, iPlant, and TOLWeb
      • The whole afternoon is dedicated to the discussion of the grand strategy - review the proposal, decide topics and order of the hackathons
      • Possibly dinner and drinks to socialize afterwards
    • Day 2:
      • Fully dedicated to the planning of the first hackathon
        • Identification of topic and objective
        • Clarification of duties and distribution of tasks
        • Publicity and project tracking
          • We have a wiki, but we need a broader plan for advertising: how do we reach out potential participants; we also need to produce press releases of the hackathons (for NESCent and other institutions). We may also want to have bigger aspirations, e.g., create a brand for the group that can continue beyond HIP
          • We need a mechanism for project tracking (looking into software to do that)
      • Another evening social event?
    • Day 3:
      • Dedicate the morning to discuss what is left over from day 2
      • Discuss also the strategy for HIP to become a bigger group, develop its own brand and image, embark in other projects
  • Additional considerations
    • Hilmar will create a Mendeley group to collect interesting readings for the group
  • Discussion of the BRF (Rutger)
    • Just completed the annual board meeting
    • Governing body for data resources and projects related to phyloinformatics; overseeing TreeBase and TOLWeb
    • In place for the last 2 years
    • Currently developing its own brand and image
    • Provides a GIT Hub for software projects
    • Exploring funding strategies (e.g., donations in cooperation with existing societies); also exploring contacts with Sloan and McArthur foundations; already established as a non-profit
    • Can be found at [1]

November 18, 2011

Agenda

  1. Responsibilities of the LT (brief review, no discussion-- we just want to hit the highlights)
    • developing a long-range strategy
    • choosing hackathon themes and dates
    • recruiting partners and key participants
    • advertising events
    • soliciting and reviewing applications from participants
    • managing hackathon events (with partners)
    • mentoring participants in follow-ups to hackathon projects
    • documenting and reporting results (wiki, publications)
  2. Accountability of the LT (to NESCent, to partners, to participants)
  3. Management models. This leads to several questions:
    • What will be the organizational structure of the group?
    • How will we make decisions as a group?
    • How do we expect responsibility for tasks to be distributed among members?
    • How will we track activity, including progress on action items or goals?
    • How will we maintain energy and nurture good working relationships?

Participants: Brian Sidlauskas, Arlin Stoltzfus, Sergei Kosakovsky Pond, Enrico Pontelli, Rutger Vos, Hilmar Lapp, Michael Rosenberg, Karen Cranston

Management Model

  • Proposal was made and accepted to establish an Executive Committee (EC) composed of Arlin Stoltzfus, Rutger Vos and Enrico Pontelli (rationale is that group is too large to make all decisions)
  • Duties of the EC
    • Handle the mundane operations of the LT
    • Make decisions for non-controversial issues and for other items as delegated by the LT
    • Assumes the main responsibility for the management and administrative activities of HIP - e.g., administration, program management, project tracking, task tracking, communication.
    • It is emphasized that the EC will focus on procedural issues, not strategic and scientific issues. The EC will operate within the authority given to it by the Leadership Team
    • The EC will also investigate the use of project management software
  • Note that the Leadership Team (LT) maintains the responsibility of making strategic and scientific decisions
  • The LT had a discussion about the need for people to volunteer in leading the various tasks to be performed; volunteers will step forward based on their skills and preferences.

Decision-making Model

  • Several strategic decisions will have to be made by the LT; e.g., selection of themes, invited participants, selection of applicants
  • LT has decided to operate by consensus; we do not envision any controversial arguments to occur; if they do, we will resolve them through discussions; we will not expect the chair to break a tie or take sides in a stalemate.
  • It was decided to use email for general discussions but to rely on either live conversations or a delegation model for the more controversial decisions
    • in the delegation model, a chosen person has the authority to make the decision after getting input from the group

How to Maintain the Energy and Momentum

  • Brief discussion about using Google+ or some other social network platform to aggregate ideas and maintain communications and discussions
  • Alternative tools could include wikis, tweets, RSS feeds

October 28, 2011

Participants: Sergei, Enrico, Michael, Brian, Arlin, Mark (Fish), Mark (Semantic), Hilmar, Rutger absent: Karen (grant proposal)

Brief Introductions and Expectations of Leadership Team Member

  • Hilmar:
    • Desire to remove barriers, facilitate synthetic access to data
    • Looking forward to interact with groups of people
    • Hackathons are enjoyable, intense and rewarding; a great opportunity to sit down and develop software
  • Sergei:
    • Hope to get input from the field on how to enhance data interoperability in the broad biomedical field
    • Gain different perspectives from the community (already learned a lot from previous hackathons)
    • In fields like virology there are not good solutions for data exchange; lack of standardization; difficulty in making next generation sequencing data retrievable
  • Michael:
    • No experience with hackathons, but extensive experience as programmer and developer
    • Desire to learn and be involved in the development of community standards
    • Desire to see solutions to the problem of getting data from point A to point B to point C
  • Brian:
    • Experience in systematics and collection databases (more from the organisms perspective and less from the computational perspective)
    • Desire to explore new ways to link information across collections
    • Interested in contributing to the dialog on interoperation and helping the community
  • Arlin:
    • Experience in population genetics, molecular evolution and computational biology
    • Experience in reuse data in unexpected ways and in combining data produced by different people
    • As part of the NIST mission, interest in facilitating data exchange and interoperability
  • Rutger:
    • Extensive experience with hackathons
    • Interest in development of standards (such as Nexml and PhyloWS)
    • Interest in taking this technology stack (and other interesting technologies) to the next level and deploy them in different projects
  • Mark (Fish):
    • Interest in biodiversity, visualization, interactions, composition of different information sources
    • BioSynC has already followed the NESCent model to bring together people with different expertise to create new solutions
    • Interested in bringing the perspective of phylogenetics (of fishes) to the team as well as his programming expertise
  • Mark (Semantic):
    • Interest in interoperation of data and online resources; use of semantic solutions
    • Interested in automating workflows through semantics
    • Hope to bring expertise in semantically modeling complex data and complex data structures.
  • Enrico:
    • Interested in knowledge representation, ontologies, and automated reasoning
    • Part of the team that created CDAO
    • Interested in exploring ontologies and other knowledge representation and reasoning solutions to enhance interoperation and possibly moving towards automating workflows

Meeting Planning

  • Tentative window for the face-to-face meeting of the leadership team is January 19-21, 2012
  • Tentatively the meeting will include the leadership team and up to 2/3 external guests (possibly someone with expertise in data resources, as this will be the focus of the first hackathon)

Summary of Hackathons Plan

  • Three hackathons:
    • one at NESCent on Data resources
    • one at the field museum in Chicago on Data integration
    • one at Arizona State University on Data visualization
  • Fundamental idea is to build links in a network of interoperable resources; possibly using existing technologies like Nexml, CDAO and PhyloWS; help identifying other relevant technologies, gaps and create new solutions.

General Discussion

  • Discussion of possible Hackathon models
    • traditional model of bringing 20-30 people for an intense and spontaneous programming experience
      • people come knowing or not knowing each others
      • initial period with informational talks to bring people up to speed with problems and resources
      • following a proposal period where ideas are proposed and discussed
      • then forming working groups (3-7 people) and work on specific problems
    • initial idea is to perform a number of targeted invitations (e.g., 2/3rd of the participants) followed by an open call; applicants need to be screened to ensure they bring expertise and skills and they are collaborative.
    • emphasize the importance of producing tangible results at the end of the 4-day effort
    • In the HIP effort there are additional considerations
      • The leadership team will organize not one event but three of them; questions about the connections among them (are they independent and each will explore fresh ideas? Is the second dependent on the results of the first?)
      • There is a greater emphasis on follow-ups from each hackathon, trying to encourage continued activities and leading to concrete results (papers, proposals)
      • Need to look at the results from the previous hackathons (in terms of how they have been organized) and learn from them
        • For example, how open should the list of goals be? How many people are targeted invitations? How to constrain the initial open space to ensure that the ideas are not too abstract?

Concluding remarks

  • Encourage the team to use the Wiki to share ideas about the organization structure of the hackathons
  • Next teleconference on November 18th, at 12:00pm

August 29, 2011

(notes by Karen)

Agenda

The major tasks that the LT faces are to fill out its roster, start having regular teleconferences, and schedule the first meeting. According to past discussions, we still are short by 1 team member to represent ecology-biodiversity interests, ideally with a global perspective. Team members are likely to be more senior persons than hackathon participants, because we want someone with connections and a broad awareness of his or her field. An obvious course of action would be to recruit this person via an open call. We already have a strategy for this. We would edit the google+ ad to emphasize ecology-biodiversity, and recruit that last individual via a semi-formal application process.

In addition, Arlin would like for us to consider alternative ways that the LT might use to ensure that ecology-biodiversity interests are reflected in our projects.

Minutes

  • present: Rutger, Enrico, Hilmar, Karen, Mark, Arlin
  • initial unrelated hurricane discussion
  • recap of past activities
    • recruited Mark Wilkinson and Sergei Kosakovsky Pond
    • third invite declined (too busy)
    • first open call did not go out broadly enough
  • still short one person with ecology / biodiversity interests
  • should we still try and recruit another?
    • Karen: would love to have someone from ecology, but we have spent much time on this process and feel we need to start moving forward with scheduling first meeting and hackathon planning
    • Enrico: shares concern about moving forward; perhaps avoid another open call
    • Mark: me too (agrees with Enrico); get ecologists involved at hackathons
    • Rutger: worried about time required for open call; can we move forward with meeting planning and keep trying to find someone else
    • Hilmar: on fence; limited diversity bothers him (demographic and scientific); skeptical about results from another open call, even if circulated more widely
    • Arlin: really skeptical about finding someone in our Rolodex, especially about finding someone senior enough to have the time to be involved
  • AS: how much enthusiasm for going ahead with open call?
  • EP: still go ahead with meeting schedule
  • can we find someone local who might be interested?
  • KC: don't want to combine open call with private invitations
  • need to re-write advertisement to be more specific about discipline and has time and connections for planning
  • general agreement about sending out an open call (and doing it well)
  • get open call out by Friday (i.e. text done by Friday)
  • where? evoldir (Arlin), NCEAS (Hilmar), ecolog (Hilmar), Triangle area universities bio departments (Karen)
  • what will we ask people to do and by when? have form, give people two weeks (10 days - September 12th)
  • Mark: should we ask people to contact us rather than fill out the form?
  • Hilmar: people may have questions, provide email address for that purpose
  • what are we looking for?
    • experience applying comparative methods in ecology; have made connection between ecology and phylogeny
    • has big picture in mind - integrative science
    • has connections in field; could effectively advertise within this community
    • interested in working with experts to develop and apply tools; user or developer
    • has time to commit to face to face planning meeting in fall, teleconferences approximately once per month, presence at hackathons (3 over 2 years)
  • need to make this sound exciting for them (not just service on their part)
  • what next after September 12th?
    • choose candidates, teleconference sometime Sep 14-16
  • discussion of web presence: should this be on EvoIO, NESCent Informatics site, separate NESCent wiki; no need to have a separate site,

Action items

  • Hilmar: will take responsibility for getting text done for Thursday night
  • everyone but Hilmar: make final comment and edits on Friday morning
  • Arlin: send evoldir ad
  • Karen: send to Triangle bio lists
  • Hilmar: send to ecolog and NCEAS
  • Rutger: welcome email to SemanticMark and Sergey and help ticket to add to hiplt mailing list
  • Karen: doodle poll for next call (after Rutger sends invite mail)
  • Hilmar: erase archives of hiplt list (where we accidentally discussed names of potential team members)

July 25, 2011

  1. filling out the leadership team
    • what is our purpose in wanting to increase diversity? (diversity in disciplines, projects, social circles?)
      • diversity important for outcomes, wrt disciplines, stakeholders, demographic (HL)
      • goal to increase diversity of resources linked together, reach out, challenge assumptions (RV)
      • demographic diversity (EP)
    • do we want to recruit a 7th member in time for the Sept meeting? - yes, ideally
    • what are we missing? what areas? (disciplinary-problem areas more important than methodology-approach)
      • active work in comparative methods, users of trees (KC)
      • ecology, systematics (HL, AS)
      • biodiversity science, biomedical (HL)
      • semantic linking, aggregation (EP)
      • visualization (RV)
    • do we have suitable candidates already? if not, how do we find them in time?
      • Recruit candidate 1 (RV)
      • Recruit candidates 2 & 3 (HL)
    • Our plan of action
      • RV resend advert
      • all edit by Wednesday 27th July
        • add focus on systematics - interest in reuse & interoperability; ideally non-molecular characters
        • reply with a few sentences on what they hope to get out of it; what they can contribute
        • arlin will make form for applications
        • August 5 deadline
      • taxacom (HL), tolweb contrib list (KC)
      • August 8 telecon 11:30 am. - reschedule if decision is complicated
      • cancel the meeting with NESCent (AS)