CAC Meeting On 2012 12 12 17:00 CET

From wiki.gpii
Jump to: navigation, search

Participants

Kasper Markus (RtF-I)

Gregg Vanderheiden (RtF-I)

Gottfried Zimmerman (HDM)

Silvia de los Rios (UPM)

Antonio Dávila (IESE)

Ignacio Peinado (TECH)

1. CAC Setup

The responsibilities of the CAC include: 
  • To keep track of Cloud4all scientific and technological results. (quarterly)
  • To identify key places where Cloud4all may be disseminated (journals, conferences and workshops, websites, etc.). (quarterly)
  • To evaluate the dissemination material (leaflets, project website, etc.) (when new)
  • To propose dissemination activities (meetings, etc.) (monthly)
  • To evaluate dissemination activities planned by the rest of the partners, as discussed during the F2F meeting. (monthly)
  • To discuss internal communication tools, if needed (the original function of the CAC) (monthly, by request)

Comments:

All partner agree

Actions:

IP will update the information about the CAC in the Management Handbook and the wiki.

2. Evaluating dissemination material 

The dissemination material available so far is:

Comments: 

GZ: there area accessibility issues with the project newsletter - the bookmarks have no title, it would be better to write the names of the companies instead of the picture with their logos...

SR: there is a problem in page 3 with the link to Raising the Floor

Actions:

  • TECH will review the accessibility of the PDF. As all partner have already have more than 15 days to review the content, it is assumed that no one has anything about the content, so as soon as TECH develops a fully accessible newsletter will send it to the CAC for final revision and finally make it public. 

3. Propose dissemination activities

Journals

  • Universal Access in the Information Society (UAIS). Special Issue on “3rd generation accessibility: Information and Communication Technologies towards universal access”. Deadline: 31-Jan-2013. [1]

The 12th European conference will take place in Vilamoura, Portugal on September 19 - 22, 2013.

  • Joint conference with AAATE 2013. According to the DoW, WP502 has to organize an international conference with at least 200 participants, 30 published papers and 10 exhibitors
  • Sponsor Cloud4all theater representation at AAATE. As done in previous project, make a representation of a scenario of use of Cloud4all 

Cloud4all workshop at m-Enabling Summit 2013, that will take place in Washington on June 6-7, 2013. After the SAB, Axel Leblois proposed to organize a Cloud4all workshop in the m-Enabling Summit 2013. As it does not seem possible that european partners can attend this workshop, maybe we should propose a showcase instead of a workshop?

Prices: [1] Single booth: $1750; Table top: $900

Comments:

  • GZ 2012-12-11: Re. Joint conference with AAATE 2013: It might be somewhat early for the Cloud4All conference. I'd rather wait another year to have more results to show and demonstrate, and think about future (post-Cloud4All) developments and initiatives.
  • GZ 2012-12-11: Re. m-Enabling Summit 2013: Showcase sounds like a good idea. We are part of GPII which is global, so we should not be restricted to Europe.

UAIS

  • GZ: who will be the lead author? Will it be one or several papers presented?
  • SR: Up to 8-9 papers, mostly in AEGIS
  • GZ: the dealine is too close, we should ask for an extension if we want any partners to publish.

AAATE 2013

  • GZ: It is too early, we will not have content. We have to set up a review board and papers should be submitted in May at most. We should change the DoW if we are not going to deliver as promised.
  • AD: agrees that we will have no content. We should ask Consortium partners to send 10-15 papers to the AAATE conference.
  • GZ: who will be responsible for organizing the conference?
  • IP: IESE will organize the conference, TECH will support the dissemination of the conference aiming to attract participants. It is important to involve all Consortium partners to attract more participants.

m-Enabling Summit 2013

  • GZ: Who will pay for this?

Actions:

UAIS

  • SR will ask for an extended deadline. We have asked for an extended deadline but we will not have a response until January, so we have to wait until then. I will let you know as soon as I know something.
  • IP will ask all partners who have participated in a deadline about the possibility to write a paper for the conference in the proposed dates.

AAATE 2013

  • Gregg and Jose will discuss about our possible participation in the conference and get back to the CAC with a proposal. The options to be present at AAATE 2013 are:
    1. Sponsor a theatre representation of Cloud4all during the conference (not discussed during the 
    2. Ask partners to send papers to the conference.
    3. Organize a Cloud4all conference co-located with the conference, with papers from external stakeholders (up to 30, as promised in the DoW)
  • TECH will check what results may be presented in the conference, and ask Consortium partners to present those results in the conference, as papers.

m-Enabling Summit 

  • IP to ask PMO about who pays for the dissemination activity. PMO cannot commit to pay any dissemination activities outside the ones included in the DoW (including the 1st interantional conference) until estimating the cost of all these activities, as the dissemination budget is quite limited. TECH will create an excel file with all dissemination activities planned in the DoW and their estimated costs.
  • Gregg and Jose, with the support of the CAC, to estimate the potential impact of the participation in the m-Enabling summit. 

4. Evaluation of public documents

[Extracted from the management handbook] The control procedure of public documents depends on the nature of the information provided in the document: 

  • In case a public document released by a participant mentions the name of other Participants, then control for approval is needed. The controller consists of the Participant(s) which name(s) is(are) mentioned. Approval in this case means to ask a written permission (by email) to the representative(s) of the mentioned Participant(s). When this written permission is received then, the document is switched to the FINAL state. 
  • In case a public document which is revealing some background information of a Participant mentions the project, no control or approval is needed from the Consortium. 
  • However, the Participant shall mention that it "participates in the Cloud4all project", and not –for instance- that it is "responsible for such or such activity" within the project, to avoid any misunderstanding by third parties. So, no controller is needed in this case. The document is automatically switched to the FINAL state. 
  • In case a public document reveals some background information on the project, then control for approval is needed. The controller is in this case the PC and TM and if they are not able to resovle the disbute, the PSC. 
  • In case the foreground information is generated by the participant wishing to publish it, the other Participants should not unreasonably withhold its approval. If so, the Participant withholding the approval shall explain the reasons to the Participant wishing to publish so that the intended publication can either be adapted or be delayed for a reasonable period in mutual consent. Discussions will be held in mutual understanding of all parties involved to balance the protection of economic value and the aim to disseminate knowledge gained in the project. 
  • In case the Participant wishes to publish foreground Information which is originated by other participants or which is originated together, those other Participants have the right to withhold the publication. 
After receipt of the participant's request for approval of the publication, the representatives of the whole consortium have 15 days to return their comments. When no comment in writing arrives at the requesting Participant within this interval, it is assumed that the non-answering representatives agree with the publication. 
When this written permission is received or after the 15-day deadline, the document is switched to the FINAL state. 

To sum up, due to our budget limitations, it is really important that we select the the dissemination actions that guarantee a better ROI. 
  • Should the CAC review papers that will be submitted to journals?
  • Should the CAC review in advance the presentations that will be made in workshops or conferences?

Comments:

  • GZ 2012-12-11: Should the CAC review papers that will be submitted to journals? - YES.
  • GZ 2012-12-11: Should the CAC review in advance the presentations that will be made in workshops or conferences? - Rather not. Presentations are usually made in last minute, and sometimes need to be geared for the audience just before the presentation time
  • AD: partners should inform about the papers, but the CAC should not have censorship powers.
  • GZ: the CA establishes that all public documents have to be approved by the the whole Consortium. Need to simplify that, in general absence of dissaproval can be considered as approval. Get to see if the paper has been approved by the journal, we shouldn't erect more barriers.
  • GV: It is important to make sure that the proper people are credited. In the case of products, while they're drafting - before submitting to the journal - check with the partners involved. In terms of the overall consortium, send it out and get people to look at it. We are not establishing a peer review process, the CAC should not have any censorship powers, as it may hinder the free circulation of knowledge.

Actions:

  • Policy regarding Publications
  1. There will be no formal review process of documents.
  2. However, partners writing a paper with background information on the project MUST send the paper to the partner whose background information is in the paper for review. If the partner feels that there is background information in the paper that should be removed, and the author does not agree- then it is referred to the PC and TM - and if resolution doesn’t follow, to the PSC.    No disapproval within 5 days will mean approval.
  3. It is highly recommended that the paper be circulated to the Partners before publication for review and comment. It can make the paper stronger and most people will want to read it anyway.
  4. However, approval of publications by the project Partners, or leadership is not required for publication as this would be counter to the free flow of information.

5. Internal communication tools

Comments:

Not discussed.

6. Conclusions and future actions

The future actions are in the 'actions' section within each section of the page.

  • 'Dissemination committee' or 'Communication Advisory Committee"?
  • Create mailing list?

7. Next meeting and topics

After Christmas, IP will call another meeting. Mail contact will be maintained.