Up2U Board meetings

Change in Leadership

People

Style

Workflows

Man
months allocations

How to bring the project back on track

Outcomes
of EC review report (resubmitted deliverables)

Flagging
issues

Deliverables

Tasks
& Milestones

Task
Forces (presentations & discussion)

Scope
and expectations

Erik Kikkenborg,

Vicente, Eli, Antonio

Handover from Technology to Pedagogy

SMC
report

Pilots

Learning
use cases (public)

Important Tech innovations of the platform

Public
platform?

(GÉANT)
Community build tools

Peter formally informed the Board and the WP leaders about his departure from the company hence from Up2U. Board members congratulated him on his new challenges.

GÉANT remains in charge of the project and the project coordination. An interim solution will be put in place between 31 May (Peter's departure) and 13 September (mid-term EC review). The new permanent project coordinator will be appointed afterwards.

Peter is writing a Support Document in response to the reviewers recommendations made at the paper-based review (M12). This document (or a simplified version of it) can also be provided to the reviewers as our official answer to their questions/concerns.

It was also requested that Peter provides his longer term strategic vision for Up2U (in form of a shot document of slides).

The rejected deliverables (either demonstrators, online docs or written reports) must be resubmitted by M18 along with the Support Document. The suggestion is to keep the current structure of the deliverables and add an extra chapter to them addressing the specific questions of the reviewers.

The WP leaders and deliverable owners are responsible for the re-submissions!

Peter is leaving as the project coordinator but GÉANT functions stay:

• Casper remains the main support person for all administrative aspects of the project.
• GÉANT PMO (Tryfon) can help with any EC liaison and consortium management issues.
• GÉANT Technical Writers are available to edit and check deliverables before submission.
• GÉANT Finance (Munya) can help with the quarterly reports and any financial issues, budget transfers, etc.

The Timeline of the new deliverables to be submitted by M18 is available. DoW must be followed with regard to all content of those deliverables.

GÉANT is going to appoint an experienced interim project coordinator for Up2U between now and the mid-term EC review on 13 September 2018. Peter is responsible for the handover.

Most likely, the temporary project coordinator will be Licia Florio, GÉANT - AARC2 Project Coordinator. She can technically help the project through the EC review. A new permanent project coordinator will be appointed afterwards.

Deadline ASAP.

Done on 19 October.

In two weeks.

Difficulty to schedule such a meeting. Peter sent an email update to all.

On 19/10/2017 11:00, Peter Szegedi "All-hands update on the latest status of Up2U"

Deadline ASAP.

Done on 28 September.

1) Review of actions from Porto

2) Quick update of the current status. OKRs.

Up2U-OKRs-v1.pdf

- The DRAFT document with the Objectives and Key Results have been submitted to the Board. See Action 1-100517.

It was suggested by the Board to decide where to put the focus of the project:

a) is it on the modular and portable, vendor neutral architecture design and software stack prototype that Up2U makes available to pilot schools (from the cloud and/or via national service providers)

b) or is it the unique user experience and teaching&learning environment that Up2U provides to pilot schools and the end-users, teachers and students.

John suggested that the option b) is always better received by the EC and also by the end-users, of course.

- The easy adaptation capability of the platform could be an asset when we approach the pilot schools and teachers. Vendor neutrality is important, although we have to take pragmatic decisions on the actual implementation options.

We have chosen Moodle for our first prototype and we also convinced Moodle.org (the organisation) to join us in a high-level advisory role. However, this should not mean that we lock ourselves into their silo product.

Vicente suggested that we should start experimenting with an alternative LMS product (OpenEdX) as soon as possible.

Peter noted that SURFnet is experimenting with Canvas and Kaltura following a very similar architectural approach (i.e modular, scalable, standard protocols, interoperability, badges).

Action on Peter to organize an Architecture Review Meeting with Up2U participants, SURFnet and other interested parties.

Organize virtual all-hands meeting to get everyone informed and let the WP leaders organize preferably face-to-face technical meetings on the critical issues.

- Gabriella urged for the direct involvement of schools in the early development and prototyping activities of Up2U.

- Antonio suggested to make the Moodle platform more attractive for teachers and students by adding relevant courses and examples.

3) Financial overview Q2.

Up2U Total Project Costs Summary - M06 Jun 2017.pdf

Up2U Manpower Summary - M06 Jun 2017.pdf

- The reported manpower spending at the end of Q2 was at 92%. PSNC is hugely overspending (241%) while ownCloud is very much underspending (26%) compared to the linear progress.

- The reported total cost claim at the end of Q2 was at 78,5%. Perhaps PMs are cheaper than budgeted or less travel and other infrastructure expenses were claimed.

Action on Peter to follow up with partners who are deviating from the linear financial progress and ask for clarifications.

4) Approval of the new budget v10.

ICT-22-Budget-v10-approved.pdf

- The budget re-arrangements have been implemented according to the partners' requests approved by the WP leaders. The partners' total travel budget has been increased with more than 100.000 Eur all together. The total man power has been reduced from 678 PMs to 674 PMs.

 The Board officially approved the new budget distribution.

- Gabriella reported that GARR will need more rearrangements between WPs.

- Peter (forgot to mention but notes here that) due to legal merger of the GÉANT Association and the GÉANT Limited (currently linked third party) the budgets or the two entities also need to be merged.

Action on Peter to distribute the agreed new budget table and ask for further modification requests to be implemented in the next round.

5) Any issues to be fixed (GA discussion/decision?)

1-100517 Up2U objective and key results (OKRs) must be defined, all work packages should have their own OKRs linked to the Up2U OKRs and also cascaded down to the task level. Progress should be measured.

Completed

Up2U-OKRs-v1.pdf

 The Board members have been re-invited to attend the MT meetings.

Weekly MT meetings happen on Wednesdays at 14.30 CSET/CET at

https://trello.com/b/UzePwMTd/wp1-project-management-and-external-liaison

On-going action.

The Board encouraged all the WPs to organize face-to-face meetings to discuss the critical issues.

Situation improved. Almost all partners provided financial information for Q2.

Action on Peter to chase for the missing data.

Completed. The new budget distribution has been approved by the Board.

ICT-22-Budget-v10-approved.pdf

Completed

As it was agreed in Porto, today, the WP5 leader Stefano, the WP5.1 task leader Mary, the available Board Members (Gabriella, Eli, Vicente) and Project Coordinator myself had a video call to clarify the structure and role of the Subject Matter Committee.

STRUCTURE

1. The board members agreed with the current structure of the SMC. There is a permanent committee (voluntary people for the whole duration of the project) reporting to the Board. There are national sub-committees (temporary people for a fixed period of time or a certain task to complete) reporting to the permanent committee members.

2. Any project participant can propose candidates for both permanent and sub-committees. The Board appoints the permanent committee members and then the permanent committee members decide on the national sub-committee members.

3. The committees can have both internal and external people.

4. By "external" we mean people who has no formal task or specific role/contribution to the project other than his/her SMC participation. This is regardless of the person's affiliation (i.e. someone can be considered "external" and still working for a project partner origination, if nothing to do with the project otherwise).

- There was a concern raised by the board about the current large number of internal people on the list of permanent SMC candidates!

Agreement: It was agreed to reduce the number of internal people on the permanent committee by:

- allowing only one person per partner organisation, preferably working on the pedagogical filed.

- putting the members with formal role in the project to sub-committees

- invite external people, preferably with strong links to national ministries of education

ROLES

1. The role of the SMC is twofold: it acts as an advisory committee to the Board and the MT members and it also serves a subject matter committee looking after the pilot countries, training programmes and other pedagogical aspects of the project.

2. It was agreed that both roles can be fulfilled with one SMC. No need to create a separate body, just clarify the role of the members.

MEMBERS

1. It was agreed to try and appoint more "external" people to the permanent SMC, in general.

2. It was agreed to keep Stefano (WP5 lead) on the permanent SMC ex-officio acting as the link to the WP5 activity for SMC support.

3. It was agreed to remove duplicate candidates per organisation and people with conflicting roles from the permanent committee. They can participate in the national sub-committees.

4. It was agreed to consider three new (external) candidates to the permanent SMC. Names and CVs to be circulated for appointment by the Board via email. ACTION on Mary.

5. It was agreed to leave 1-2 vacancies always open to be able to consider new members at any time (as the Board and the MT see fits).

- Up2U objective and key results (OKRs) must be defined, all work packages should have their own OKRs linked to the Up2U OKRs and also cascaded down to the task level. Progress should be measured.

- ACTION on Peter to propose a tool and procedure to do OKRs.

- Board should meet face-to-face at least once a year. Board should attend the MT meetings at least quarterly to get some first-hand insight into the work of the MT.

- The board encourages the MT and the WP leaders to achieve more cross-pollination between WPs and better communicate downstream. Not only Trello but private Wiki spaces are needed per WP to collect consolidated information.

1. Review the technical progress, time line, and deliverables. There were 3 ethics deliverables, 1 dissemination and 1 training plan "online document" submitted to the EC in the 1st quarter (Jan-March). Other deliverables and milestones are approaching in M6 M8 and M12. WP2 and WP6 might be low on resources. WP8 should kick in soon.

- WP1 management issues are on the agenda of the Board.

- WP2 should restructure the website focusing on (policy) impact and users. Project related administrative data can go on the Wiki.

- WP3 needs improved leadership. ACTION on Peter to coach Ilias. Other board members may help.

- WP4 seems to have enough resources, Allan should delegate more, build team and coordinate the group of developers from OU, PSNC, IUCC, TELTEK, ownCloud.

- WP5 should provide input via survey, subject matter committee, and better engagement with academic/research experts form the community.

- WP6 signalled resource and engagement issues. They have to communicate better what they are doing and where they need help. ACTION on Peter and Gabriella to address the resource issues and give more leadership.

- WP7 should come up with a pilot schedule taking into account the technical roadmap of WP3 and the pedagogical aspects/requirements of WP5. Coordinate the school engagement activities in the pilot countries.

- WP8 has just started to kick-off.

2. Financial overview. Ideally, the project coordinator should see the financial progress on the partners quarterly. This is what I requested at the GA meeting and Amsterdam and I got no comments. It turned out though that the quarterly financial reporting is difficult for some partners. Only 8 partners provided data out of 18 by the extended deadline. I need the Board to revise this practice and make a decision. Maybe escalate to the GA again.

Up2U Total Project Costs Summary - M03 Mar 2017.pdf

Issues to be discussed:

- Only 10 partners provided data out of 18. TAU officially complained about the informal quarterly reporting practice. We need a decision how to address the situation.

- Compared to the linear progress in Q1 (based on 10 partners data) both the personnel costs and the other costs (incl. travel) are under average: 91% personnel cost and 80% other costs in total. But there are some anomalies...

- PSNC claimed 3x higher personnel costs compared to linear progress. I think this is because of their expensive manager. If they continue doing so, they will run out of money soon. We have to address this issue with PSNC.

- Partners are generally low on travel budget. The situation with NTUA and ISEP needs to be solved soon, could also cause cash problems. There are some warnings at FCT and KIFU too. In contrary, the personnel costs are only claimed at about 40% in most of the cases. The solution might be to shift budget from PM to Other. Maybe later in the year.

- The Board encourages all the partners to comply with the quarterly financial reporting practice. Course of ACTION:

a) Peter to distribute the Q1 status to the GA members and advocate the usefulness of quarterly reporting.

b) See if the situation improves in Q2.

c) If no improvement, the Board can escalate the issue to the GA and the GA has to vote luckily in favour of the quarterly reporting practice that will then be mandatory for all partners.

3. Rearrangement of travel budgets. In general, the project budget is low on travel for every partner. Some partners already signalled this. We have to decide how to handle the issue. Some budget from GÉANT can be redistributed to partners. Also some partners travel more than the others. We need to see how to consider this in a fair way.

ACTION on Peter to clarify what decisions can be made by who:

a) on moving budget by partner from one WP to the other WP

b) on moving budget by partner from PM to travel

c) on moving budget by coordinator from one partner to the other partner

- Revisit the travel budget issue at the next Board meeting.

- The Board was not able to made an informed decision on the actual members.

- ACTION on Peter to ask WP5 leader to organise a meeting with the Board members and explain the purpose and structure of the SMC.

5. Any other business. Please, let me know.