...
27 September, 2017
on-line
Actions
| Actions | Comments |
|---|---|
| 1-270917 Peter to distribute the agreed OKR document to all Up2U project partners. Define the main focus of the project's expected impact. | Deadline ASAP. |
| 2-270917 Urge the technical work packages to start piloting with alternative LMS platforms (OpenEdX, Canvas). Peter to organize an Architecture Review Meeting. | ASAP. |
| 3-270917 Organize virtual all-hands meeting in the next coming two weeks and encourage the work package leaders to organize face-to-face technical meetings to solve the critical issues. | 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" |
| 4-270917 Peter to follow up with partners who are deviating from the linear financial progress and ask for clarifications. | Deadline next Board meeting and/or Q3 report. |
| 5-270917 Peter to distribute the agreed new budget table and ask for further modification requests to be implemented in the next round. | Deadline ASAP. |
Agenda
| Agenda items | Notes |
|---|---|
1) Review of actions from Porto | - See the comments at the 1st Board meeting actions below... |
2) Quick update of the current status. OKRs. | - 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. | - 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. | - 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.
- 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?) | n/a |
The Board officially approved the new budget distribution....