Hosted by iMAGIS, INRIA Research Centre, Grenoble, March 30, 2000.

  • Check whether Francois Faure's visit to Vienna can be funded by PAVR
  • Find way to fund MG's participation to meeting
  • Seek clarifications and assurances from UIB
  • AB
    • Draw up and circulate updated list of deliverables
    • Obtain summary of expenditure by category against budget
    • Provide summary of man/month information
    EPFL to host next management meeting?
    All sites
    Send Anna an electronic copy of any joint papers, or their URL

    University of Bath Phil Willis, Project Coordinator & Scientist-in-charge
    Maurizio Scotti
    Anna Beria, Administrative Assistant
    University of Glasgow John Patterson, Scientist-in-charge
    Jean-Christophe Nebel
    Sylvain Brugnot
    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
    Francois Faure

    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.
    Action: AB

    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:
    Post-doctoral posts
    PhD posts
    University of Bath, UK
    Maurizio Scotti [IT]
    University of Glasgow, UK
    Jean-Christoph Nebel [FR]
    Sylvain Brugnot [FR]
    Siemens, Munich, DE
    EMN , Nantes, FR
    EPFL, Lausanne, CH
    Tom Molet [FR]
    Ik Soo Lim
    University of Geneva, CH
    Pascal Volino
    Sumedha Kshirsagar
    TU Vienna, AT
    Chris Faisstnauer [IT]
    until year end
    UJF, Grenoble, FR
    INRIA/IRISA, Rennes, FR
    UIB, Mallorca, ES
    Johan Claes
    until August
    LUC, Limburg, BE
    Jaume Fuster Pulgarin Guillem Bernat Rullan

    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.
    Action: AB

    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.
    Action: AB

    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.
    Action: AB

    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.
    Action: PJW

    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 project coordinator.
    Action: PJW

    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.
    Action: PJW

    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).
    Action: ISL

    11. A.O.B.

    None.  The formal meeting closed at 11.30.