panosc-eu / panosc

The main repository for common issues and general information about the PaNOSC project sponsored by the EU

The panosc project on panosc-eu

This is the main repository for common issues and general information about the PaNOSC project. sponsored by the EU.

Photon and Neutron Open Science Cloud (PaNOSC) is a Europen project (finaced by the EINFRAEOSC-04 call) for making FAIR data a reality in 6 ESFRI Research Infrastructures (RIs), developing and providing services for scientific data and connecting these to the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). The 6 ESFRI RIs are:

• ESRF - https://www.esrf.eu/
• ILL - https://www.ill.eu/
• EU.XFEL - https://www.xfel.eu/
• ESS - https://europeanspallationsource.se/
• ELI-DC - https://eli-laser.eu/
• CERIC-ERIC - https://www.ceric-eric.eu/

The 7th partner is the e-infrastructure

• EGI - https://www.egi.eu/

The project will work closely with the national photon and neutron sources to develop common policies, strategies and solutions in the area of data management and data services and connecting to the EOSC.

Create an issue here if it concerns the PaNOSC project in general. You can find help on writing markdown in the GitHub guide: https://guides.github.com/features/mastering-markdown/

panosc's Issues

Review Report : EOSC Stakeholders communications

Review Report in page 3 (section 1.5) reads:
- Keep, and even foster, the relationship with ALL (apart of ExPaNDS) EC funded project in the EOSC ecosystem. As said in the DoW, liaison and collaborate with other projects, is crucial. For example in order to re-use and/or complement generic training materials on FAIR principles, EOSC interoperability, etc. (WP9- CERIC agreed to explore which related activities exist in other EOSC projects).

Possible actions:

• Ensure all cluster projects attend our Annual Meeting and that we attend theirs
• Invite cluster projects representatives to more workshops / events
• Maybe organise specific workshop / event just to catch up with cluster projects ?

Press release about kickoff

CERIC to prepare a press release for the starting of PaNOSC. The draft to be circulated to all partners for feedback. After that each partner to publish the press release via their communications channels. CERIC will handle the EC channels.

Document storing in GitHub

During the conference call 05/12/2018 https://github.com/panosc-eu/panosc/blob/master/Work%20Packages/WP1%20Management/Meetings/Project%20Management%20Committee/2018-12-05%20Project%20Management%20Committee/2018-12-05%20PMC%20Summary.txt we discussed about how best to store documents.

The main points were:

1. GitHub is good for code, however binary documents don't diff well. Do we want a different storage system for binary documents?
2. GitHub is currently open for everyone. Do we want a different storage for confidential documents?
3. Not said during the conference call, but @fangohr pointed out that for videos a dedicated storage place could be useful

Jordi's view is:

1. If several people need to work on the same document Google Docs proved very useful and I would like to continue using it. However once the document is completed a final version must always be stored in GitHub.
2. I agree a separate place for confidential documents is required
3. I have no opinion on this, if we could use the same place as for 2 tailoring permissions in different folders then that would be great.

Please let us know your thoughts, or come up with a proposal

Carsten's view is:
2. we need a private repository. to this end, we'll have to apply to github as a scientific organization (which we are). this will allow us to create a limited number of private repositories under panosc-eu for
free. we could then store internal documents here. in the same way we can also create private code repos in case we're not happy with opensource from the start of development.

PaNOSC DP Framework & ExPaNDS DP

This is an issue to remember that given the different nature of both documents it would be very positive if a common output on Data Policy would be produced.

Andy Gotz & Brian Mathews are good candidates to take this task on.

If that's possible, then the first question would be: what is the deadline for having this ?

PaNOSC website development

Please have a look at the first draft of the website layout in the PaNOSC Google drive at this link:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1R2vivDAoT2D8Euk4H8eTCVhPVdxz5-vH

INFO:

• At the bottom of the homepage, partners' logos will be displayed differently from how you see them now, and will be rather placed in one single line, which may be scrolled horizontally (see example at the bottom of the CERIC homepage https://www.ceric-eric.eu >> projects and collaborations)
• PaNOSC will not have its own newsletter. Therefore, that section in the homepage will be deleted. At the top right of the page, instead of "Newsletter signup", there will be a link "Contact us" redirecting to the related section (under "About")
• "Use cases" and "Women in Science" stories will be displayed in a similar template as the news' one (to see the example, follow this link > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AicK3_Ic9jCo9YVF9pz3fYCeCqpI08dH
• The top menu will not be clickable in the first level, and rather only in the sub-items listed with mouse-over.
• Permissions in the backend can be given to editors (seeing, modifying and publishing) and contributors (seeing and modifying, without publishing). Later on and before of the release of the website, we will need to define who will have access to the backend as editor and contributor. I would keep the number of editors limited (e.g., 3-5 people max.).

QUESTIONS:

• In the contacts' page, we may include - in addition to the list of PaNOSC contacts ([email protected], [email protected] + all wp leaders' contacts) - also a contact form, in which whomever has questions may select the related topic from a drop-down menu. To each item, one (and only one) email address may be assigned. It could be that of the related WP. Alternatively, the contact form may be implemented for general enquiries only, which may all be directed to one single address (e.g., [email protected])

Update KPIs

The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the proposal need to be updated to take into account any changes at the partner sites and to include new more fine grained ones. The goal is to have KPIs which allow us to measure the real impact of FAIR and PaNOSC.

Review Report: joint KPIs with ExPaNDS

The Review Report reads in page 2 (point 1.5):
A general recommendation for the future work might be something that it is already mentioned in the D1.5 that could benefit both PaNOSC and ExPaNDS: define joint KPIs and identify the resources from each project to be committed to achieve them

Work on KPIs should advance :

• Publish PaNOSC KPIs in the website
• Update KPIs by WP leaders & partner representatives
• WP leaders to talk with their ExPaNDS correspondents in order to maximise the number of common KPIs
• If relevant, add further KPIs
• Publish in our website ExPaNDS values for the common KPIs

Review Report: Dissemination plan review

The Review Report reads in section 1.5:
- Review the Dissemination plan (D9.1). For a long project (48 months) like PaNOSC is necessary that the dissemination plan is an “open document” since the scenario of communication opportunities might change over time (ex. all the onsite activities have been translated to WebRTC channels like Zoom, where the strategy should be redefined; social networks, like twitter, are not used in Zoom environments, so analyzing the new community communication opportunities and shortcomings will be valuable).

Also, in page 6, section 4.4:
• Given the PaNOSC commitment with Open Science, open-notebooks etc. it is easy to think that they would publish in Open Access journals as well as they will deposit in a specific green repository (like Zenodo). This issue might be specifically addressed in the reviewed Communication and Dissemination Plan.

Some actions could be:

• Maybe create some timescales for updating the Dissemination Plan (maybe once a year?)

Upload feedback to review report

Hi,
So just to ensure that we do not forget, we need to respond to the feedback from the review report. Looking at the review report I have identified some topics to address in the feedback:

• Actions to be done in the short/medium term : new issues will be created for them:
  #62 , #63 , #64 , #65 , #66 , #67 , #68 , #69
• 1.3 General Comments : In general terms, the alignment and integration of ExPaNDS [...] is very positive but might raise the attention to better distribute the resources of both projects, guarantee they both delivered what planned but perhaps saving resources thanks to coordination. I think that coordinating the execution of two projects with so many partners and research centres makes it if any more difficult and will not make us save resources
• 1.3 General Comments: Minor deviations have been noticed: underspend resources and minor deviations in the training expectations (WP8) that are still insufficient in the pan-learning.org platform . Maybe we want to talk about this.
• 1.4 Recommendations concerning... : some lessons learned could be applied or taking into account, for example, searching for new mechanisms to engage the community (the so-called “users”) [...] Better user involvement, through open educational resources, might be explored. I think this is very interesting and goes in the direction of what we want to do, so we should say so.
• 2.2 Are the objectives of the project... : In this sense, PaNOSC consortium is asked to be permanent aware and adapt its objectives and methodologies to new EOSC or PAN community needs (e.g. The new strategy for EOSC https://www.eoscsecretariat.eu/sites/default/files/ open_consultation_booklet_sria-eosc_20-july-2020.pdf where ExPaNDS and PaNOSC are working together https:// github.com//issues/60). We should say that we have already provided SRIA feedback for example

Setup doodle for design workshop

We will organize a design workshop for pan-learning.org between the two parts of the TtT workshop so that we get started on improving the design of the e-learning platform

• setup doodle
• invite usual WP8 participants to doodle
• settle on date

Github folder/file structure

Hi,

I am starting to prepare the basic bits to manage and coordinate the project, and I would like to propose the following structure to store and manage the documentation in GitHub:

My idea would be that each WP leader is responsible for the structure of his/her area, however many will have access and will be able to update/create content.
ESRF will be responsible for the structure in Submitted Deliverables, as I believe we need to upload the documents, even when others will be in charge of creating them on time.

GitHub will be doing the version control for us, so we can know who updated what and when.

What are your thoughts? Any feedback is welcome about the suggested structure and about whether using GitHub or not for stuff that is not code.

Review Report : Risk Management

The review report in page 3 (section 1.3) reads:
- The table of critical implementation risks should be updated (cf. section 2.3).

Also in page 4 (section 2.3):
New risks are identified (all the COVID-related issues) although not stated in the “unforeseen risks” section. Some of the envisaged risks at DoA (proposal level) are not relevant anymore but are addressed correctly.

I think that we should have a GOOD LOOK at the risks and update them accordingly.
This would be work for each WP leader, we could also double check this with ExPaNDS as they should have similar risks

Specify concrete actions/deliverables of cooperation with ExPaNDS

Following the establishment of a MoU between ExPaNDS and PaNOSC, we have a few areas identified for cooperation/communication, however these are not very specific.

The idea is that Jordi will engage with ExPaNDS management, so we can define concrete areas for cooperation/objectives to pass on to WP leaders of each project for final validation and implementation.

Deliverable D10.1 POPD Requirement

Hi,

Just so we have this overdue "special deliverable" to submit:

Has anyone ever submitted a deliverable like this one that we can use as template/guidance?
Thanks,
Jordi

Risk Management

Dear all,

During the kick-off meeting and also during the Executive Board we talked about Risk Management.

I propose to quickly decide how we want to proceed and start working on it.

Review Report: Engage the community

In the section 1.4, the review report reads:
_ It does not make much sense to make recommendations for a past time, however, some lessons learned could be applied or taking into account, for example, searching for new mechanisms to engage the community (the so-called “users”) in the FAIRification of data and the re-use and citation of Photon and neutron datasets. Better user involvement, through open educational resources, might be explored._

We should clarify how are we going to engage with users, be specific about these actions with timescales and someone nominated to be owning each task.

Examples of what can be done:

• Engage with users to obtain use cases
• Organise user-centric workshop / meetings
• Plan to target user meetings via presentations / demos

Financial Control for PaNOSC

I think we need to start thinking how often and with how much detail we want to oversee our expenditures for PaNOSC.

My idea would be:

1. Each Work Package Leader is responsible for expenditure within their workpackage, while keeping informed the Project Management Committee
2. Each partner is at the same time responsible for their own expenses and linked 3rd parties
3. Of course this will require some communication, and that's one of the many reasons why we have the Project Management Committee meetings
4. At high level, we only need to follow how much we are spending, so we can take action in case of over or under spending.

I've created a document for the point 4: https://github.com/panosc-eu/panosc/blob/master/Work%20Packages/WP1%20Management/KPIs/PaNOSC%20-%20FinancialControl_20181215.docx

Executive Board - Agenda for kick-off meeting

Dear all,

Please find below a proposal for the Executive Board agenda during PaNOSC's kick-off meeting:

1. Quick Introduction by the Project Coordinator of the PaNOSC Governance
   a. Executive Board competences as per draft Consortium Agreement

2. Election of the Chair (term duration proposed of 2 years renewable)

3. Approval of proposed reporting to Executive Board from Project Management Committee
   3.a. Quantitative reporting

   1. Number of risks open
   2. Number of issues open
   3. Submitted deliverables
   4. Missed deliverables
   5. Budget control report (annual actual vs. forecast expenditure)

   3.b. Qualitative reporting

   1. Major open risks
   2. Major open issues

   3.c. Defining matters requiring immediate reporting to the Executive Board

4. Current status of the project by the Project Coordinator
   a. List of Project Management Committee members and responsibilities
   b. List of Work Package Leaders and responsibilities
   c. List of Observers and responsibilities
   d. Report on risk, issues and upcoming deliverables
   e. Report on Consortium Agreement status
   f. Report on project finances

5. Next Executive Board meetings
   a. Approximate dates and method (videoconference or face to face)

6. Any other business

Other topics to cover during the meeting are:

• Changes in WP leaders which will be discussed in 4.b.
• Resources foreseen by each partner either as part of point 4 or a new point.

CERIC link on panosc website

Hi,

This is Juncheng. I have just started working on WP5 at European XFEL from July. I just happened to find the logo link of CERIC on https://www.panosc.eu/ does not work. The correct link might be https://www.ceric-eric.eu/ instead of http://www.ceric-eric.com/?

Best,
Juncheng

Internal Milestones / deliverables

Dear all,

As per PMC 19/06/2019 please collaborate with suggested Milestones/ deliverables in your work package.

We do not want to have these every other week, but rather fill in the gaps when milestones/deliverables in a work package are separated for over 6 months. As a rule of a thumb if a WP has nothing to show/deliver over six months ideally we would add an internal deliverable/milestone to track progress.

We exchanged the names of D. Roccella and J. Kolar.

We exchanged the names of D. Roccella and J. Kolar. It should appear as:

Partner	Project Management Committee Member	Executive Committee Member
ESRF	Andy Gotz	Rudolf Dimper
ILL	Jean-Francois Perrin ?
EuXFEL	Hans Fangohr	Sandor Brokhauser
ELI-DC	Florian Gliksohn	Allen Weeks
ESS		Jonathan Taylor
CERIC-ERIC	Dario Roccella	Jana Kolar
EGI	Diego Scardaci	Tiziana Ferrari

Draft Consortium Agreement

A copy of the Draft Consortium agreement from our Legal officer has been shared with the WP leaders of PaNOSC.

We would like to obtain all feedback before 21st December 2018, so we can quickly proceed to integrate it, approve it and sign it.

Observer status

This was raised by A. Gotz (ESRF) during the conference call of 12/11/2018.

How should we deal with observers? Who are our observers? What are they entitled to? How do we engage with them?

Initial thoughts are:

1. They are invited to annual face to face meetings, but at their expense
2. We could ask the ones that issued letters of support for PaNOSC if they want to be observers
3. How many observers from the same institute? One would be good (less coordination) but one per work package focusing on technical things could be interesting too
4. It could be easy to send them a report regularly (e.g. every couple of months) to keep them engaged and up to date with project progress

If you have any ideas/suggestions please add them in this thread.
Thanks,

panosc web site requirements

This issue is for gathering the requirements for the PaNOSC project website.

Please add your needs, ideas and proposals for the PaNOSC website as comments to this issue.

Financial Control report

This issue is to remind all partners that they must provide a financial report as agreed by our Executive Committee and Project Management Committee.

The information to provide is available on https://github.com/panosc-eu/panosc/tree/master/Work%20Packages/WP1%20Management/KPIs/Financial%20Reports with a file for each partner to fill in the period 01/12/2018 to 31/08/2019 (first nine months of execution of PaNOSC).

The DEADLINE to provide this information is 30/09/2019

Common SRIA statement from PaNOSC & ExPaNDS

Following the latest EOSC SRIA document : https://www.eoscsecretariat.eu/sites/default/files/open_consultation_booklet_sria-eosc_20-july-2020.pdf

Patrick Fuhrmann & Rudolf Dimper are working on a common statement from both projects. The target date to complete this is 15th September.

Review Report : WP1's Data Management Plan

The Review Report in page 3 (section 1.3) reads:
- It is expected that the Data Management Plan (D1.2) will be updated in the course of the project. For deliverables that will be updated, the PO will need to be contacted to re-open the deliverable for revision.

Please note this is not relate to the DMPs that WP2 will do. This is about the DMP for PaNOSC.

Suggested actions:

• Jordi to work on updating the DMP. This may be a common action with ExPaNDS (they have a DMP too)
• Jordi to check with WP leaders areas of the DMP to improve

PaNOSC logo

The website's supplier has provided some proposals for the PaNOSC logo.

Here is the file where you can see all proposed options.

Please send your first three preferences, by indicating the numbers of your favourite logo's proposals (you'll find the number of each proposal at the top right of each page).

The 1st one in the file is the one suggested by the supplier, and with which a first proposal of the website's layout has been already proposed. You can see it at this link

Data storage needs?

STFC (3rd linked party to EGI.eu) asked about the data storage needs for PaNOSC during 2019.

JF Perrin suggested 1 PetaByte for 2019 during the conference call 12/11/2018.

Please let us know if that sounds reasonable for you or not.

ExPaNDS Technical Coordination Board - someone required

ExPaNDS Technical Coordination Board (TCB) assists the Technical Coordinator in defining the technical strategy and in deciding on specific technical issues. It is responsible for the technical overview of the project. It is composed by the TC and technical experts appointed by the partners (one per beneficiary).

The TCB is also responsible for the technology tracking in the areas of interest to the project, analysing the market offering of both commercial and open source solutions that can represent opportunities or new technical collaboration for the project. In this respect the TCB will provide innovation and strategic advice to the PEB through technical reports or updated strategic documents when requested.

The TCB can invite experts (for example, representatives of development teams for components not developed within the project) to join their meetings if needed.

The TCB will meet at least every second month.

• ExPaNDS would like that PaNOSC nominates someone to integrate their TCB. They have members already for ALBA, DESY, Diamond, EGI, Elettra, HZB, HZDR, Max IV, PSI, Soleil and URKI

Organize risk-analysis workshop

Executive Board - items for next meeting

Collect items for the next EB meeting

Upgrade pan-learning.org to Python 3

1st Annual Meeting

CERIC-ERIC would be happy to host the 1st annual meeting in Trieste, if the rest of the partnership agrees.
We proposed the end of October or the beginning of November 2019.
I would like to ask you to add your comments, suggestions and availability to this issue.

Answer EOSC-Hub questions

The following questions were posed by the EOSC-Hub to the EOSC-Hub Strategy Board:

QUESTIONS for the EOSC-hub Strategy Board

The EOSC-hub project is a seedbed for the EOSC Portal that is a gateway to EOSC services and resources (https://www.eosc-portal.eu/). Being a major instrument in developing the Portal, the EOSC-hub project should add value by diversifying its features and offering. Hence,

Q1. What should the Portal offer, beyond what exists now in the Portal and elsewhere, to attract various users?

Q2. Which directions or actions should EOSC-hub take and implement into the Portal to boost the interplay between disciplines, and thus, to accelerate novel science and innovations?

Q3. What kind of service delivery and brokering strategies should we exercise to attract committed FAIR compliant service providers?

Q4. What role can the portal play in facilitating the "B2B processes” between public entities, e.g computer centres to ERICs?

Q5. What are the (most important three) key success factors that the EOSC-hub need to meet from the point of view of user communities, service providers, funders?

We are asked to provide written feedback by 21/1/2019. Your input is requested. Please add your answers and comments to this issue.

Joint Annual meeting PaNOSC/ExPaNDS

It has been agreed that a joint PaNOSC/ExPaNDS annual meeting is desirable and a possible range of dates suggested: 19/10/2020 to 01/11/2020.

As per PMC 29/01/2019:

• The expected duration of the event is 4 days
• It would be good if the event could start with lunch, rather than during the morning
• Expected number of attendees is around 100
• ELI could host the event

It is required to
1. Confirm exact dates
2. Confirm maximum number of attendees

Service Provider for EOSC-registered services

PaNOSC will start to register services in the EOSC very soon and as a part of the process a Service Provider must be assigned.

It is not clear what is the best strategy for this. Ideally PaNOSC would have a consistent approach.
Options are:

1. The RI that is providing the service
2. PaNOSC and/or ExPaNDS
3. LENS and/or LEAPS
4. A new PaN Community body

As of today it is not clear what are the requirements to be listed "Service Provider" and whether that imposes some obligations/constraints via SLA or similar. It looks like the "Service Provider" does not need to be a legal entity, however it may be positive to have a "Service Provider" more permanent than just PaNOSC and ExPaNDS.

This topic is to be discussed and agreed at PMC level.

Software licensing

During the PMC 29/01/2019 and within WP4 @jamhall discussed what licensing to use for all the different software that will be produced.

Ideally the software licenses must be harmonised, so we do not have problems with incompatible licenses
@fangohr asked what the proposal said about licenses

It was also said that Jupyter uses MIT-BSD license

Report on kick-off

Just to remind Jordi that he must do some work on a report from the kick-off meeting. This draft then would be circulated and completed by all partners.

Write DMP for PaNOSC

We need to write a Data Management Plan for PaNOSC. We can get help from

1. DMPonline: https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/

2. other DMP plans on zenodo for example

PaNOSC Executive Board & Project Management committees

Dear all,

We still have not finished our Consortium Agreement (our legal team is working on it), however as per our Proposal and the draft that we shared previously we plan to have an Executive Committee with one member from each Consortium partner* (ESRF, ILL, XFEL.EU, ESS, ELI, CERIC-ERIC and EGI).

We need to sort out who is going to fulfill this role for each partner, ideally he/she will be a senior member of the institution not directly involved in any of the work packages.

This issue is just a reminder that we still do not have the nominated people for the Executive Committee*.

PLEASE NOTE: The Executive Committee (EC) has been renamed Executive Board (EB) in order to do not have the same acronym as the European Commission that funds the project.

Review Report : DOI links

The Review report in page 3 (section 1.5) reads:
- Guarantee the persistent identification of all the public deliverables and outcomes of the project (for example, the DOI of the Data Policy Framework (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.382604) does not work

Also, in page 6 (section 4.4):
• PaNOSC hast not published (at least yet) any scientific publication. However, in the Project Continuous Report, 8 “publications” are listed, all them as “gold” with is wrong, since they are not scientific publications and all of them are published as pre-prints in Zenodo. But one of them, even when listed as Gold Open Access, is a closed scientific peerreviewed, paper under a paywall. See: https://doi.org/10.1080/08940886.2019.1608119. (Following a written remark, the COO responded that the beneficiary in question is in the process of getting gold access.)

Actions:

• The DOI link for the DP Framework should be fixed ASAP
• Examine why/how we got the link wrong

Review Report: Open Access publications

The Review Report in the page 2 (section 1.5) reads:
- Carefully review the Open Access/Open Data Policy within the project and guarantee that all the scientific publications about the project have immediate publically available papers and Justify venues for publication. Regarding that, the project will last until 2022, consider to publish in the Open Research Europe platform that will be available at the beginning of 2021.

Also, in page 6 (section 4.4):
• PaNOSC hast not published (at least yet) any scientific publication. However, in the Project Continuous Report, 8 “publications” are listed, all them as “gold” with is wrong, since they are not scientific publications and all of them are published as pre-prints in Zenodo. But one of them, even when listed as Gold Open Access, is a closed scientific peerreviewed, paper under a paywall. See: https://doi.org/10.1080/08940886.2019.1608119. (Following a written remark, the COO responded that the beneficiary in question is in the process of getting gold access.)

_ In the Communication and dissemination costs, I have not found any related to APC (Article Processing Charges). Taylor and Francis, the publisher of the Journal (Synchrotron Radiation News) is OA friendly even when it is not pure Open Access publisher. The consortium needs to explore the hybrid OA and apply urgently for its openness. This paper is also cited in the DMP. (Cf. update mentioned above.) _

• Given the PaNOSC commitment with Open Science, open-notebooks etc. it is easy to think that they would publish in Open Access journals as well as they will deposit in a specific green repository (like Zenodo). This issue might be specifically addressed in the reviewed Communication and Dissemination Plan.

Some possible actions are:

• WP leaders reminding everyone that publications MUST be open access and that budget is available for this

Complete stakeholders list

Dear all,

As the project develops more people will be joining in and it will be difficult to keep track of everyone, therefore I have created a document with a list of stakeholders on:

https://github.com/panosc-eu/panosc/wiki/PaNOSC-Stakeholders

Can you please fill in the document with your contact details? Ideally we will have for each person that somehow participates in PaNOSC their name, surname, email and phone number, so we can get hold of people easily.

Review Meeting details

This issue is to clarify details for the review meeting to take place around month 18 of project execution.

1st detail to clarify with our project officer is : What is the exact date for the Review Meeting?
If no exact date can be provided, at least a confirmed range of dates would be helpful, the smaller the range the better.

Unrelated to this issue, Andy could ask our Project Officer whether PaNOSC can sponsor events that attends as well

Work Package 5 Leader leaving

Hi,

This issue is to highlight the fact that @CFGrote is leaving, therefore he won't be leading WP5 to its successful conclusion. While I wish the best of luck for Carsten in the future we need to be ready for this change in the project.

1. Will XFEL.eu appoint a person to replace Carsten who will be able to lead WP5?
2. If yes, can XFEL.eu appoint this person before the kick-off meeting?
3. If yes, we need to know who and invite this person to attend the kick-off meeting.
4. If not, will there be a handover within XFEL before Carsten leaves ? (end of February I think)
5. If that's the case that would be great, if not we need an interim WP5 lead
6. If XFEL.eu cannot appoint a replacement for any reason we will need to think about how to work this out.

Questions to FairsFair

This issue gathers the question we propose to ask the FairsFair community. FairsFair is an h2020 project to help communities adopt the FAIR principles (see https://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/Infrid%20Dillo.pdf).

Following questions have been proposed by the PaNOSC members (mostly WP2):

1. How to make FAIR data policies GDPR compliant?
2. What assistance can FairsFair provide in reviewing data policies?
3. What certification will FairsFair provide?
4. Which of the FAIR recommendations should be integrated directly into data policies?
5. Will FairsFair provide a template data policy or make a catalogue of FAIR compliant data policies?
6. What does FAIR compliant mean for data policies?

Please add questions to this issue by continuing the numbering.

Mailing list

Hi,

The current panosc mailing list is becoming very crowded, with frequent non-targeted emails.

To reduce the amount of emails we all receive that do not concern us we propose to create the following mailing lists:

1. [email protected] --> Used for external communication. Anyone can join. Responsibility for this mailing list falls under WP9 Communication
2. [email protected] --> Used for communication within the Project Management Committee. Only members of PMC, WP leaders or their deputies can join. Responsibility for this mailing list falls within WP1 Management
3. [email protected] --> Used for communication within the Executive Board. Only members of the EB, the project coordinator and WP1 leader can join. Responsibility for this mailing list falls under WP1 Management
4. [email protected] , ... , [email protected] --> A mailing list for each work package used for communication within the work package. Membership decided by WP leader. WP leader is responsible for the mailing list
5. [email protected] --> This could be for administration related to the panosc mailing lists and github

This means that we plan to close [email protected] as it is becoming less useful and targeted over time.

PaNOSC on Cordis

PaNOSC needs to be declared on the Cordis site: https://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.html

This is part of the Outreach activities so could CERIC look after this please?

Thanks in advance

Kick-off meeting planning

Dear all,

This issue is about the need to sort out all the planning for our Kick-off meeting, currently scheduled to take place 15th January in Grenoble.

As of now, I can think of the following areas pending confirmation:

1. Agenda
   1.a One or Two day event?
   1.b We need a draft agenda
2. List of attendees per partner
3. Organiser bookings
   3.a Meeting rooms / areas
   3.b Meals / restaurants

Thanks