Review of summary document providing Committee overview

[C. Anthony Hunt]

Re: Voting on changes

Ahmet, Jacob:

It's hard to keep track of these various changes as posted in the Forum. A document with edits would be helpful. Some suggested changes seem helpful, others do not.

Maybe when all pending revisions are made, a new Forum can focus on the revised document. I expect that new revision ideas will be suggested as the Committee's work progresses.

[Martin Steele]

Re: Voting on changes

It's hard to keep track of these various changes as posted in the Forum.

I agree with Tony on this. After awhile, interlaced Forum postings are difficult to track/trace and can lose their context. An updated draft document of its current state will be quite beneficial. Is there a better way to do this?

[Ahmet Erdemir]

Re: Voting on changes

It's hard to keep track of these various changes as posted in the Forum.

I agree with Tony on this. After awhile, interlaced Forum postings are difficult to track/trace and can lose their context. An updated draft document of its current state will be quite beneficial. Is there a better way to do this?

There are multiple ways we can try to get the workflow more streamlined. Yet, I am not sure which one will be better. Regardless of the path, we need to keep in mind that we can track information and also different versions of files:

• Our current approach was that, we will discuss changes in the forum and the leads of the task (in this case Jacob and Jerry for updating overview presentation) will update the document in the subversion repository, which is under version control.
• Alternatively, everyone can put their comments in the document in the repository by updating and committing their changes.
• Another alternative is that rather than collecting the information using the forum we can use the wiki feature (I'll enable it soon) of the project site or use the survey feature.

Please also note that forums are fully searchable and you can attach files to your messages. Hope this helps. I am open to any ideas that can facilitate our collaborative work.

Ahmet

[Ahmet Erdemir]

This is why I am trying to emphasize the need in technological innovation and trying to promote it into the charge slide. Ahmet, I believe I used the term you yourself suggested on April 28nd in this forum, yet you chose to reject it from the list of changes. Perhaps you changed your mind seeing the overall picture, yet you did reject a point that is very important to me. Please see my previous post in response to Lealem. I ask to raise this in our next meeting.

Hi Jacob,

I assume you refer to my response to "identify and promote innovative game changing technologies establishing model credibility":

Add a new Slide after Slide 14 with the Title Charge:
Sub title in bold is:
Identify and promote innovative game changing technologies establishing model credibility

Under this title add the following bullets:
* Engage with modelers and accumulate technologies in a list
* Identify technologies that are successful in one modeling field and check if those are applicable in other modeling fields.
* Assess possible benefits of each technology from certain to highly speculative.
* Disseminate the list of technologies and findings with the modelers and modeling community.

No. This is part of charges 2 & 3 (slides 11 and 12). "Identify and promote innovative game changing technologies establishing model credibility" is not different than "Define novel translational workflows to enhance credibility of models and simulation processes"
Many of these listed items are implied by charges 2 & 3. Maybe we'll find a better way to clearly incorporate them in slides 11 and 12 without bloating the presentation.

I certainly value this proposed charge. My problem was that I was not able to differentiate it from Charges 2 and 3 (summarized in slides 12 and 13, respectively), Maybe we should combine these into one charge and name it as "Identify and promote innovative game changing technologies establishing model credibility" and underneath it list activities you have provided along with those at slides 12 and 13. We need to remove overlapping bullet items so that we can have a concise document.

Hope this clarifies my viewpoint.

Cheers,

Ahmet

[Jacob Barhak]

As Tony pointed out, it was hard to vote on the changes in the format presented in this forum.

Yet Ahmet upgraded the committee web site to include a wiki. Here is a link to it:
http://wiki.simtk.org/cpms/

I took the time to upload the entire presentation to the wiki under the first link.

You will find there the history of changes until 30-May. The wiki now reflects all the changes suggested until we voted.

Since the voting was not in full agreement in all cases, I suggest we revisit this issue. Yet instead of voting Approve/disapprove, I suggest we change the wiki.

The wiki records the history of changes so we can track who changed what and when. To allow informative communication, I suggest that you add explanations to your changes in the discussion section at the end of the page. This will allow us to view the current snapshot of the document and at the same time discuss the changes without too much confusion. Also when you make changes, please record a comment for the changes at the end, this will show up when we look at the different versions.

I hope that the wiki will allow us to improve our communications and keep a live document.