DRAFT MINUTES of the final PAVR MANAGEMENT MEETING
held on October 25th, 2001, 2.15 pm
at the University of Bath, UK

Present

 
University of Bath Philip Willis, Project Coordinator & Scientist-in-charge
Anna Beria, Project Administrator
University of Glasgow John Patterson, Scientist-in-charge
Francisco Rodriquez
Ecole des Mines, Nantes Cedric Dumas
EPFL, Lausanne Ik Soo Lim
University of Geneva Pascal Volino
TU, Vienna Werner Purgathofer, Scientist-in-charge
Chris Faisstnauer, Alessandro Artusi
Imagination, Vienna Michael Gervautz, Scientist-in-charge
Klaus Dorfmueller
LUC, Diepenbeek Frank Van Reeth, Scientist-in-charge
iMAGIS, Grenoble Jean-Dominique Gascuel, Scientist-in-charge

Apologies: Thierry Duval (IRISA Rennes) and Francisco Perales (UIB Mallorca)
 

Professor Philip Willis chaired the meeting.

  1. Welcome, introductions and time constraints
    The chair welcomed all participants to the final meeting of the network.  The project would officially end on 31 October 2001, but work on the administrative side would continue until 31 December, date by which the final report to the Commission would have to be presented.  Time constraints for both days were checked and noted.
  2. Minutes of previous meeting, held in Vienna, April 5, 2001
    The minutes were adopted.
  3. Matters arising from the minutes

  4. Item 3:       WP3 meeting had not been organised.  Jean-Daniel Feckete had left EMN on sabbatical, leaving no instructions for the meeting.
    Item 4:       It will be necessary to justify EMN and IRISA's failure to recruit by showing efforts made to do so.
    Action: EMN, IRISA
    Item 5.3:    Anticipated overhead adjustments had not been necessary.
    Item 7:       URLs had been circulated with previous minutes
    Item 8:       Some partners had already reported on activities during the final years.  The final report has to be drafted to secure release of the final 10% of funds from the Commission.
    Action: AB, All
    Item 9:       PJW had sent the necessary forms, but no reply had been received from the Commission.  However, TU-Vienna's costs, including CF's travel, had been accepted.
  5. Review of appointments:
    1. iMAGIS Grenoble had recruited Pauline Jepp (officially since 7th of May)
    2. man-months figures predicted to Oct 31st 2001 were updated in the light of actual m-m delivered.  This revealed a shortfall of 65 m-m overall.  It was agreed that the shortfall could be ascribed mainly to Siemens' total failure to recruit and eventual pull-out, late payment of instalments on the Commission's part and regrettably to INRIA Rennes and EMN's lack of success in recruiting, despite best endeavours. WP pointed out that the amount by which the network has underspent is greater than the shortfall in m-m would justify.  PJW stated that, after adjustments, the m-m shortfall (roughly 11% of prediction) matched the underspending.

  6. Review of progress:
    1. Mobility of researchers.  The figures, supplied by the coordinator and showing the total number of weeks researchers from each site spent working at other sites, were revised to take into account recent movements.
    2. Completed deliverables.  Deliverables that had not been completed by the previous meeting: John Patterson reported that further progress on D15 (Demonstrator of image-analysis based morphing and warping) had been made but work had not been completed. Ik Soo Lim reported that D11 (Generative models from motion capture and integration), for which EPFL had been responsible, had been completed. Frank Van Reeth confirmed that D10 (Demonstrator of 2-D animation) on which LUC and Bath had cooperated, had also been completed.
    3. Final (annual) Report. The coordinator asked for contributions (one or two paragraphs, max 1/2 page, for non-specialists) from all sites, reviewing the work done in the final year of the project.  These would be added to previous years' contributions to produce a consolidated report covering all five years.  Some had already been received; it was hoped that the remaining ones would be sent within two weeks.  The final cost statements had to be produced.  Again, the coordinator asked all participants to set things in motion with their respective finance departments as soon as possible.
  7. Budget matters
    Confirmation had been received from Brussels that the fourth instalment of the funds would be paid out shortly.  There was some confusion as to whether a fifth instalment would be payable after presentation of the final report.  This was in fact the final 10% of the funds withheld by the Commission pending the satisfactory completion of the project.
    1. Summary of expenditure to date.  Spreadsheets showing expenditure as currently recorded were made available and discussed.
    2. Predictions to Oct 31st 2001.  From available data and looking at the number of researchers still employed by the project it was possible to predict what the likely final figures for each site would be.
    3. Adjustments between partners.  It was agreed that the coordinator be given authority to recalculate the figures of the final allocation of funds if necessary.
  8. Work Groups reports (non-technical issues).

  9. No actual meetings had taken place since the last meeting as none had been deemed necessary.  Researchers had been exchanged and there had been more "virtual interaction" between teams.

  10. Work Package 
  11. Topic 
  12. Tasks 
  13. Deliverables 
  14. Co-ordinators 
  15. WP2 
  16. Capture technologies 
  17. T2, T4 
  18. D1, D5, D11 
  19.  EPFL > Ik Soo Lim 
  20. WP3 
  21. Immersive interaction 
  22. T5, T6 
  23. D2, D4 
  24.  EMN > Jean-Daniel Fekete
  25. WP4 
  26. Facial interaction 
  27. T7, T8 
  28. D6, [D17-dropped], D18, D19 
  29.  Miralab > Sumedha Kshirsagar 
  30. WP5 
  31. Dynamic simulation 
  32. T3, T9, T10 
  33. D3, D7, D8, D9 
  34.  UJF > J-D Gascuel 
  35. WP8 
  36. Keyframing 
  37. T13 
  38. D12, D13, D14, D15 
  39. Glasgow > J. Patterson
  40. Any other business
    Plans were agreed for the technical presentations to be given on the next day.  Presentations were scheduled by Glasgow, Imagination, Bath and EMN.

    The coordinator thanked all participants for their good cooperation over the duration of the project.  Werner Purgathofer warmly thanked Professor Willis on behalf of all the partners for his hard work as project coordinator.  The hope was expressed that the good working relationships established between the partners would lead to future joint projects.