Page History

Outcomes of the GA

Amendment:

• Status
• Budget changes
• Tasks until the end of the project

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

1) Review of actions from Porto

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.

- 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.

4) Approval of the new budget v10.

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).