SUMMARY OF ACTIONS ARISING
||EPFL to host next management meeting?|
||Send Anna an electronic copy of any joint papers, or their URL|
|University of Bath||Phil Willis, Project Coordinator & Scientist-in-charge
Anna Beria, Administrative Assistant
|University of Glasgow||John Patterson, Scientist-in-charge |
|EPFL, Lausanne||Ik Soo Lim|
|University of Geneva||Pascal Volino|
|TU, Vienna||Peter Wonka|
|Imagination, Vienna||Michael Gervautz|
|UIB, Mallorca||Johan Claes|
|LUC, Diepenbeek||Frank Van Reeth, Scientist-in-charge|
|iMAGIS, Grenoble||Jean-Dominique Gascuel, Scientist-in-charge |
Apologies: Ecole des Mines de Nantes; IRISA, Rennes
1. Welcome, introductions and times constraints.
The meeting started at 9.30 and was chaired by Phil Willis, who welcomed the participants. Frank Van Reeth was expected to arrive after lunch, but after a brief discussion it was decided to proceed with the management meeting as planned. Time constraints for the following day were noted.
2. Minutes of previous meeting
The minutes of the previous meeting (IRISA, Rennes) were adopted unamended. The agenda of the meeting was also adopted.
3. Matters arising from minutes
The summary of actions arising was checked. Progress Report
contributions and cost statements had all been received, some with considerable
delay, some on the wrong forms, etc. The coordinator asked the
participants to ensure that contributions and cost statements for this year's
report be forwarded in good time as delays had an adverse impact on the release
of funds by the Commission. All other actions had been completed, with the
exception of the updated deliverables list (in progress). John Patterson
reported that the Turing Institute had been wound up but that ties remained with
the people who were part of it.
The position of Imagination as the new industrial partner was discussed. Michael Gervautz said that he had a researcher ready to start in April, but that if no funds were forthcoming it would be hard to fulfil the man/month commitment. The chair assured him that constant pressure was being applied on the Commission official dealing with the paperwork and that there were signs of progress.
4. Review of appointments
The appointment situation was as follows:
|University of Bath, UK||
|University of Glasgow, UK||
|Siemens, Munich, DE||
|EMN , Nantes, FR||
|EPFL, Lausanne, CH||
Ik Soo Lim
|University of Geneva, CH||
|TU Vienna, AT||
until year end
|UJF, Grenoble, FR||
|INRIA/IRISA, Rennes, FR||
|UIB, Mallorca, ES||
|LUC, Limburg, BE||
Peter Wonka, a graduate from TU-Vienna who had already spent some time at
INRIA Rennes, was likely to fill the vacancy at UJF. A review of the
man/month situation showed that although Glasgow, Bath and TU-Vienna were on
course to fulfill their commitments, all sites needed at least one more
researcher working full-time between November '99 and the end of the project is
the project's overall target was to be met. If additional researchers
could be recruited by sites which had already spent/committed their full
allocation, funds could be reallocated from underspending sites within the
limits of the 50% rule. The new commercial partner, Imagination,
already had a PhD student in place, officially registered with TU-Vienna, and
was actively looking for a second. A comprehensive summary of man/month
information was required.
5. Review of progress: deliverables, rate of expenditure, annual report
5.1 The list of deliverables was reviewed and an updated list would be drawn
up and circulated, showing those which had been completed.
5.2 The rate of expenditure was low at UJF and UIB. UIB had already
received sufficient funds to extend Johan's contract by a further year. A
summary showing global expenditure to November '99 broken down by category and
compared with available budget was required.
5.3 The third instalment of the funds would be released after the annual report has been accepted by the Commission. This had only recently been submitted.
As already highlighted at the meeting in Rennes, more joint publications were needed (see minutes of meeting in Rennes for a list of possible papers). A count was taken of papers recently published, soon to be published and still at the planning stage: one had been published, two were virtually ready and 11 papers were planned.
In theory the Commission requires a copy of all joint papers to be
submitted. So far we have given details and abstracts of joint papers
published but have not submitted any copy. The participants were required
to send Anna an electronic copy of any such papers, or at least their URL, in
case the Commission asked for them.
Action: all sites
6. Work Group reports
No WP meetings had been called since the previous meeting. WP3 was not active, WP4 had been completed. WP5 and WP8 were active.
7. Mobility of researchers
A discussion on exchanges that had taken place and possible future exchanges
was postponed to the technical meeting in the afternoon. J-D. Gascuel
asked whether Francois Faure - now a member of staff at UJF - could be
funded by PAVR to go to Vienna on an exchange. The chair thought this
unlikely, as he was no longer a "young researcher", but would investigate.
8. New commercial partner
The position of Imagination had already been discussed. Here Michael
Gervautz pointed out that the Commission's failure to formally acknowledge
Imagination as the project's new commercial partner meant that his participation
to the current meeting could not be funded under the project. It was
agreed that possible ways around the problem would be discussed later with the
9. UIB's contractual position
The chair summarized the situation at UIB. Josep Blat had now
officially left UIB and it was proving difficult to find a willing academic to
replace him as PAVR scientist-in-charge. Johan Claes had effectively
no-one to report to or to represent him vis-a-vis the University's
authorities. UIB were nevertheless under a contractual obligation and the
coordinator (Bath) would seek to clarify their motives and intentions by writing
to the vice-rector of research and, if necessary, visiting. Johan was keen
to see his contract (exp. 5.8.2000) extended by another year.
10. Date and place of next meeting
Three more management meetings would be held before the end of the
project. The final one (Autumn 2001) would be held in Bath.
Imagination would host the penultimate meeting (Spring 2001). As EPFL had
not yet hosted a management meeting, Ik Soo Lim was asked to put the question to
Daniel Thalmann for the next meeting (September/October 2000).
None. The formal meeting closed at 11.30.