Changes between Version 3 and Version 4 of Evaluations/20121002


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Oct 22, 2012 9:27:00 AM (13 years ago)
Author:
David van Enckevort
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Evaluations/20121002

    v3 v4  
    77The goal of the evaluation was to learn from our experiences in this project, both from 'What Went Well' (www) and what we have to 'Take A Look At' (tala). We tried to identify which items we have to address immediately in the project and what are the lessons we have learned for the next project.  The evaluation was done with a brain storm session in which each person could first write down five items that went well and five items to take a look at. We categorised these items and discussed them in the group.
    88
    9 In total we had 29 www and 37 tala items. These items could be divided in two major groups: organisational and technical, which left only a few other uncategorised items.
     9In total we had 29 www and 37 tala items. These items could be divided in two major groups: organisational and technical, which left only a few other uncategorised items. We discussed these items and tried to distill actions and lessons from them.
    1010
    11 == Action items ==
     11== Technical ==
    1212
    1313
    14 == Scratch ==
    15 Technical: File management & replication
     14=== File management & replication ===
    1615* General backup strategy and restore?
    1716* What is where (ToC of files)?
    … …  
    2120* Data freeze: can we mark data sets.
    2221* Data librarian: who is responsible for keeping the lists
    23 (dcache instance writes)
    2422
    25 Action items:
    26 => create a series of user stories describing
    27 => Version individual files, not the whole set because to big (+index, etc)
    28 => Have overview of who wants what
    29 => Small files we can release as a whole, e.g. SNP releases
     23==== Action items ====
     24* create a series of user stories describing the practical issue we encountered during the project to share with SARA and BigGrid
     25* Version individual files, not the whole set because to big (+index, etc)
     26* Have overview of who wants what
     27* Create small files we can release as a whole, e.g. SNP releases
     28* Sort out backup strategy, what to keep, how to distribute over the resources and make it automated.
     29* Make people responsible for data management.
    3030
    31 Technical: Distribution of the analysis
    32 * Where do you compute what?
     31=== Distribution of the analysis ===
     32* Where do you compute what? There was not a clear plan on the usage of the resources.
    3333* Can we really distribute analyses over multiple sites
    3434* Currently we depend on LISA and UMCG clusters.
    35 => Make pipelines distributed: deploy pipelines on multiple clusters
    36 => Make dependent executable available on other clusters
    37 => Make data available on other clusters
    38 What pipelines do we want to distribute and why, and what are the barriers???
     35* What pipelines do we want to distribute and why, and what are the barriers???
    3936
    40 Technical: QC and tracing of errors
     37==== Action items ====
     38* Reduce dependency on single resources:
     39 * Make pipelines distributed: deploy pipelines on multiple clusters
     40 * Make dependent executable available on other clusters
     41 * Make data available on other clusters
     42
     43=== QC and tracing of errors ===
    4144* Robustness of the analysis
    4245* How do we make certain that data analyses are used
    43 => Action item: clear QC steps but pragmatic. E.g. compare unique aligned reads.
    44 => Action item: verification of pipelines accross sites using overlap samples.
    4546
    46 Coordination: Communication problems
     47==== Action items ====
     48* Clear QC steps but pragmatic. E.g. compare unique aligned reads.
     49* Verification of pipelines accross sites using overlap samples.
    4750
     51== Organizational ==
     52* Coordination: Communication problems
     53 * Overview of external GoNL projects
     54 * Very good that we have a SC member (Cisca) on the call all the time.
     55 * Foreign contributors is nice, but it seems like they take away nice projects away. Need better communication.
     56 * Who is responsible for what?
     57 * Decentralized management (we can not boss other locations)
     58* Organization:
     59 * It's not always clear which resources are actually available
     60 * SV team has too little man power to do the work (largely volunteers, hard to stimulare people)
     61 * Some groups could use some strengthening from one or more experienced people (Pheno, Imputation)
     62 * Not clear what should go into which paper, responsibility for the papers.
     63==== Action items ====
     64* Communication:
     65 * At every Steering Committee meeting have one of the subproject report results to Steering Committee
     66* Organisation:
     67 * Ask the Steering Committee about available human resources (do the GoNL members get the time they need?)
     68 * Group responsible of rolling roadmap for one year (get from the steering committee)
     69 * Have more bioinformaticians in the steering committee and recognition of that
     70 * The technical people should get appreciation for their scientific contribution!
     71 * Need experienced person for each working group (SV is okay, imputation and pheno are a bit light because Yurii left)
     72* Science / Roadmap:
     73 * Paper plan
     74 * Get from the steering committee general directions, very broad, what can / should do next with the data (GoNL flag, or just using)
    4875
    49 Organization: which resources are actually available
    50 
    51 Science / Roadmap:
    52 * Paper plan
    53 * Get from the steering committee general directions, very broad, what
    54 can / should do next with the data (GoNL flag, or just using)
    55 * Group responsible of rolling roadmap for one year (get from the
    56 steering committee)
    57 * Have more bioinformaticians in the steering committee and recognition of that
    58 * At every SC meeting have one of the subproject report results to SC
    59 * Overview of external GoNL projects
    60 * Very good that we have a SC member (Cisca) on the call all the time.
    61 * The technical people should get appreciation for their scientific
    62 contribution!
    63 * Need experienced person for each working group (SV is okay,
    64 imputation and pheno are a bit light because Yurii left)
    65 * Foreign contributors is nice, but it seems like they take away nice
    66 projects away. Need better communication.
    67 
    68 Organization: Roadmap and planning
    69 * Who is responsible for what?
    70 * Decentralized management (we can not boss other locations)
    71 
    72 Actions:
    73 * Ask the SC people resources available (do the GoNL members get the
    74 time they need?)
    75 * SV team has too little man power to do the work (largely volunteers,
    76 hard to stimulare people)
    77 
    78 Keep:
     76==== Things to Keep ====
    7977* Weekly skypes
    8078* Mailing list