2010-02-09 Tuesday Meeting
Agenda
Remember: Agenda must be complete (with estimated times) on the day before the meeting. Any additions after that must go at the bottom (AOCB)
- EM questions: Will's presentation (30 mins)
-
Project management (1 hr)
- Graffle: no one edited after meeting last week. Everything ok? (5 min)
- Status on agilo (10 min)
- Review of easily decidable issues (green bubbles) from last week's slides. Please review before hand. Scott has extracted the slides to be discussed at http://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AXDHwaZ2QLBSZHc5Y25jZF8xNGNrajVkd2R4&hl=en (45 minutes)
-
AOCB (any other competent business) - briefly
- Updates to OME site About page-- JRS
Notes
Graffle
- no edits; everyone happy?
-
Chris: did the local changes from Melissa/Chris get added?
- 2 days late, no worry
Agilo
- possible to reverse?
- Friday: upgraded the database again. worked well
- To use it for real, have to change the ticket types (defect)
-
Downgrading is straight-forward
- Can isable the agilo functionality
- Lose teams & sprints (tables)
- Not extensively tested, but went back to normal trac
- Switch back and forth even
- URLs are maintained, etc.
-
@Actions
- Chris Need to request licenses from Agile42
- Report back on Thursday
Survey review (15:11-...)
-
preview: sending them out to external parties
- Brian: important thing was to vet who we're dealing with
- know groups before we are required to deliver to them
- Chris: what does a preview mean?
-
if "preview" is sending out to wider group / from hudson,...
- a more complicated deal.
- Brian: managing expectations
-
Josh: What needs to be set in stone?
- Jason: Is the question clear?
- Jason: Brian said 2 things * Can't vet fully early testers * Flaming is ok, but should also come with data * "Preview" versus "Prerelease"
-
Two zeroes from Ola & Carlos
- Ola: Haven't done previews before
- Carlos: will have to keep track of number of interested parties * Who wants what? Negative offset perhaps of what good may come of it. * Badly phrased? With a preview page, would get a more positive note. * More work to keep track of them, and keep them good enough.
-
Jason: need to keep them small, etc.
- From some, we haven't gotten much
- Jean-Marie: dedicated page with clarification of what we mean.
- Permission, for example, "try at your own risk"
-
Jason:
- Case-by-case basis for doing site-by-site approach
- Here's a site that has data/requirement that is vocal and wants a preview
- OpenGL and HCS haven't got much feedback.
-
job rotation
- Jason: methodology? PM yes. Cut and paste error (Ignore)
-
Jason's 3rd and 4th -4 weren't. (chair)
- Note taker: Jason is a horrible note taker
- You don't want him to be note taker
- Agenda maker: this way you know the person to go to
- Most people don't care
- Andrew: don't think meeting chair & agenda maker
- Will: do we even need a meeting chair
-
Chris: don't like rotating, benefit from having consistent style
- no point in recording notes if every time they are different
-
Josh: not a problem to take notes, but it's not accepted
- Jean-Marie: have one day to review notes
- Jason: next meeting, appoval of previous minutes
- last chance to voice issue
- Colin: implicit is that you've read
- Will: not convinced
- Brian: doing it online? not wasting time of meeting?
- Andrew: reply to nitpick
- Jean-Marie: hasn't happened for two years
-
Josh: sharing/rotating is a way to learn the process
- Jason: not best mechanism to learn what's going on with the team
- Jean-Marie: a bit ambitious
- Josh: ok. Not a lot of support for large-scale rotating.
-
agenda making
- best way?
- @Andrew researchs best way to do it
- Initially
-
@Actions
- not rotating.
- notes are more formal.
- putting action items on next agenda
-
working week
- Ola: ideal day is 6 hours of pure development work. Is that true?
- Chris: relaxing definition of "development"
- Andrew: difference between regular meetings (non-work) and mini-meetings (is-work)
-
If we're not including regular meetings, then lose a day
- morning coffee, regular meetings, ...
-
Ola: entire week is 6hr/day in front of computer (docs, tests, code)
- then is 24 hour week. every hour a 5 minute break.
- if standard week is 30 hours then 24 hours of coding is maximum
- is work just typing?
- Andrew: where's the slack? in estimates or in the time per week?
- Will: should we just say "ideal days" and not the number of hours?
- Chris: there are 5 days a week, how many hours do you need for slack?
- 2 hours for meetings, etc.
- Jean-Marie: working day is 8 hours.
- Ola: 30 hours of programming a week is too many
- during estimates were assuming 30 hours of coding a week
- 6 hours is all effective work (towards producing something)
- Josh: anything that is a ticket (and is estimated) counts toward 6 hours
- Chris: 2x2hour meetings. Tough to do 5 days total.
- Donald: get paid for 35 hours.
- Andrew: makes a big difference to the estimates over release period
- Donald: and someone is then doing 6 hours a week?...
-
Andrew: if you assume people are going to do similar amounts, there's a problem
- You are trying to schedule relative to others to have it comparable
- Josh: velocity/averages will get rid of the rounding error
- Andrew: important when looking who's overloaded
- Chris: some of us work more than others
- Jason: want to show that two tasks will be done at the same time
- Andrew: will effect the planning on how many tasks we can get done
- Brian: goal is for people to be self-aware about estimation accuracy
- Then we can start real planning
- Donald: distinguish between allocation and work that gets done
- Scott: checking in the meetings that we're living up to our estimates
- Carlos: don't feel comfortable talking about estimating, but any process will help me
-
@Actions
- All effective work is counted (not just coding)
- > < ul>
-
other presentation?
- bad scheduling, will shouldn't have been double booked
- Jason: do a few more, summarize quickly
- we have a gift of getting into the guts
- schedule another time to go over with EM with Will (ad hoc)
- Jason: double meetings don't work.
- Brian: people run out of steam
-
notes
-
notes at all meetings?
- Andrew: at every meeting is over the top. * Only meetings with decisions * But meetings without decisions are...???
- @Notes will be taken at all meetings * Chris: Put them on tickets like mini-groups * Jean-Marie: at the moment, Tickets or WorkPlan * For current project-wide mtg, they go on plone
-
Format
- Will: 2 word bullets are too short. Enough meaning the bullet points if you weren't there. Clarity.
- Chris: making the notes more formal/declaritive implies that they have to be clear
-
notes at all meetings?
-
Response time
- Andrew: 24 hours seems a bit extreme. Not everyone needs that.
- Jean-Marie: Swiss meeting where lot of confirmation of our 24-hour policy
- Colin: "Next working day" (Josh: +1)
-
Ola: automatic response when we're away?
- Chris: gets irritating
- Andrew: but this isn't personal emails.
-
Mailing list v. forum
- forums good
-
No's for mailing list
- Chris: don't like having both of them. But not so bad.
- Andrew: don't like mailing archive is largely unusable.
- Andrew: people being able to send emails! +1 (i.e. implementation problem)
- Brian: searchable...
- Ola: -2 on forum (not there), because of notification; if works, is +2
- Donald: forget it exists (30 in. monitor with refresh)
- Jason: user-standpoint is horrendous. can't get my head around it. * immediacy and status is missing. * Chris: lost on the mailing list, too. (Good email client)
- Jean-Marie: going through the archive and transform them to notes on the website * Andrew: that's how the FAQ items were made * Jean-Marie: haven't done it again.
- Josh: having a medium missing requirements could lose people
- Jason: yes, redundant
-
Donald: task given to someone for managing each of these
- QA, trac, forums, mailing-list, blog
- Recognizing that it is actually effort
-
@Actions
- Keeping everything
- Fix notification (some time spent)
- Integrating the two with a bridge (???)
- Add this to the Paris agenda!
- Review archives for FAQ
- Turn QA into ticket
- Get a big monitor up on the wall
-
rotating jobs
- Josh: not knowing what is being watched is stressful
- Chris: like notes, have some people do support provides continuity
- Chris: in some cases, no one has a chance to respond
- Jason: I read in survey point "watching" not responding (make sure it's done)
-
Carlos: make me happy/feel more comfortabe if there were 1-2 people (rotated?) to eaves drop on everything
- and keep up with what's going on and tell others.
- having this officially?
- "Forum conductor"
- pass off more.
- Carlos: needs to be a shared job
- @Josh and Chris due "support conductors"
-
public process
- Jean-Marie: no project is fully public, we already expose a lot
- Andrew: concerned that we're making promises in "3 days"
- Donald: at the moment, everything except the graffle is public
- Chris: something proprietary public is a bad precedent (graffle)
- Jason: what do people get?
- @Action: ok to expose information, but aren't going to put work into it
-
team decisions
-
@Actions
- devteam is not permanent
- decisions are added to work-plans. (they are updated!)
- see above
-
@Actions
-
methodology/terminology
- Jean-Marie: using a tool will help us decide on terminology (come back to this)
-
development environment
- Andrew: I'm doing different work.
- Jean-Marie: we discussed that before
- Chris: seems silly
-
tools
- (figuring out scale of bar-graph)
- Andrew: plone is fine for just editing, don't trust the database behind it
- ...
-
preview: sending them out to external parties
Jason/About pages
- Time to update them (More realistic page)
- Funding body should see our actual size
- Glencoe, etc.
- @Jason will discuss with Andrew
JCB Metadata editorial
- too inwardly focused
- focus on where this is all going
Will/EM
- What to do next?
- EMDB is for storing EM, but extend for all metadata types in workflow
- Missing link of everything (annotations...) together
- No way to visualize in web client. (Publishing)
- Some mentions of editor (protocol/processing data)
- Colin: What is yr1? Few months into first year.
-
In discussions with Christoph...
- some different ideas of how to proceed
- scheduling a regular meeting/talk
- for use in facilities? Probably. Needs discussion
- Blurred line between EM project and rest of project (doesn't matter)
- Looking at existing tools, duplicating this work??
-
Chris: How tied to using it as an acquisition platform?
- Not so directly
- Others are more acquisition focused.
- Separate app (not EMAN)
-
Possibly to link things together (not part of grant)
- Who should be doing this
-
Big images
- 4Kx4K, 32bit
- single plane is too big, memory-wise
- 4Kx4K, 8bit is still too large for viewing
-
What to do now
- things required for what's promised + other
- help a little with a lot, or in one area
-
Chris: expectation from Christoph/Ingvar?
- What are they developing?
- Igvar on validation of single particle workflow
- Various people use same raw data for their map (different algorithms)
- Quantifying the results of those algorithms
-
Work on BF for EM formats is covered (low-level community service)
- Data-model, etc. yr1 * almost each center has their own standard * MRC
-
Who's in a good position to answer this?
- "We use SPIDER"
-
Donald: if the algorithm validation is part of this, then focus there?
- getting everything in the same store
- Donald: should be in OMERO
- EMAN2 is a good highlight.
- Shows us what we need.
- Jason: what is the baseline? * Data-in, See data, get something like EMAN working
- Deliverables, biweekly meetings, ...
Meeting Minutes (from Brian)
In Attendance: Josh, Chris, Brian, Andrew, Ola, Colin, Will, JM, Donald, Scott, Melissa, Jason
Agilo
- Looks like we can go back from Agilo if we need too.
- Chris updated Agilo last week and it went a lot smoother.
- Chris needs to get some licenses from Agile42. By Thursday Chris should be able to get us our real licenses.
Presentation based on the Survey
- We can could dotmocracy.org for our surveys in the future.
-
Previews:
- Brian: Some concern to make sure we 'vet' who we preview to and explain to them carefully what to expect.
- Jason: As long as the feedback is helpful, even if its negative, its worthy.
- Ola: We haven't done 'preview' before so we need to define what that is.
- Carlos: For us to do this we need to keep track of a large number of 'previewers'
- JM: Lets define what we mean by preview
- Jason: I think we can decide on a case by case basis who to give previews too and what to focus on during the preview.
-
Josh: Do we need to document what previews are out to who?
- Jason: No lets just keep doing what we're doing.
-
Job Rotation:
- Jason: Some folks are good at note taking and agenda making. Nice to know who those folks are! We should keep them where they are.
-
Josh: The important thing is that notes are noticed and reviewed.
- JM: We should review them. Jason: At the beginning of next meeting we should agree to them.
- Brian: Lets just do it via nitpick/email.
-
Josh: The Agenda maker is not so much an 'agenda maker, but someone who has a 'snapshot' of what's going on. If we continue to use one person the agenda tends to get copy/paste-like.
- Jason: a person who knows the scoop is important but that shouldn't be the agenda maker.
- Josh: Perhaps we should rotate this every iteration?
- JM: This might be too ambitious at this stage.
- Josh: OK, lets table my idea for now.
- Chris: No chair as such, but everyone must read the notes.
-
Working Week:
- Ola: The issue here seems to be what is an 'ideal day'. Is this only development?
- Jason: It seems our estimates need to include all effective work?
- Brian: How do meetings fit into this?
- Andrew: It makes a difference in our long term projections if we have a 30 or 24 hour week (to cover our meetings, etc).
- Chris: We are trying to guestimate some hyper-variable thing.. lets just do what we're doing as 'best estimates' and we can adjust after.
- Brian: The goal is to become 'estimate aware' so we can gain accuracy, then we can work out project management after.
-
Meeting Notes:
- Summary: At least a summary should be posted for any meeting. Mini-groups will continue to use tickets for their summaries.
- Will: Bullet points OK but they should be clear, accurate, and most importantly, understandable later on.
-
Community Feedback:
- A response in 24 hours actually means within a working day. As long as we are cognizant of other folks 'working days' and time zones.
-
Mailing List vs Forum:
- Andrew: It would be nice if we had better mailing list searching, organizing, and archiving.
- Ola: Without notification forums are not very good. Fix that and my vote would be +2. Donald/Jason agrees.
- JM: We should really go through the mailing list archive and pull out FAQ stuff again for the forums.
- Josh: What we need is something that acts as a forum and mail list and does all!
- Donald: We have a lot of ways of talking to people maybe we should be assigning folks to various jobs.
- Jason: Lets ask the question, "What's the best way to communicate with you?" at Paris.
- JM: Until then we all need to be diligent about checking forums / mailing list.
- Chris: Having the same people responding to community is a benefit to them, although a burden.
- Carlos: Likes the idea of having 'watchers' to keep an eye on the community messages.
- Jason: Josh and Chris 'conduct' the forums now.. we can see about rotating that.
-
What Data Should Be Public?
- There doesn't seem to be a need for us to 'create work' by formatting things for public consumption as opposed to using what we have now.
- Sounds as if we keep things 'as they are'
-
Distributed Team Decisions
- All decisions will be recorded as comments in tickets or meeting minutes.
-
Terminology
- The terminology we use will most likely be decided on the tools we decide to use.
-
Development Environment
- People will use whatever tool is 'best for the job'
- (We will need to review tool requirements in the future)?
Will's Presentation: EM Directions?
- Currently experimenting with doing part of the EMAN2 workflow in OMERO.
-
Blockers:
- 4K x 4K 32-bit images are too big for OMERO. Won't import (too big for memory).
- Storing results in OMERO.
- Importing EM Data.
-
Questions & Comments:
- Chris: What is the expectations from Ingvar / Christof?
- Jason: Seems we need a EM data standard for the next step with Bio-Format
- Jason: Perhaps we need to contact some of the single molecule labs here in the UK?
Action Items:
- Andrew will research how to best set up the agendas
- We will review the 'action items' from the previous meeting at the beginning of the next meeting.
- Andrew: review FAQ and update from the mailing list / forums.
- Jason: Website needs to be updated to accurately reflect the 'ome' team page.
- Jason & Will: Write Christof.