Agenda

	Item	Time	Facilitator	Notes
1	Review Updates	5 min	All	See below
2	Conference updates	5 min	Kristi, Melissa	Deferred to future meeting
2	Augmenting the steering committee	5 min	Mike	See below
3	Roadmap process	5 min	Mike	See 2015 Roadmap Summary.pdf. Columns represent three constituencies – "All" for all respondents, "Leadership" is the Leadership Group, Steering is the Steering Group. These groups overlap. Counts are the number of respondents who indicated the feature was a priority. Green indicates the feature is in the top 7 for the group. Red indicates the feature is in the bottom seven. Grey is in the middle. Checkmarks are placed next to features that were in the top seven for all three groups. The survey informs the process. Not deterministic.
4	Report of the Contributed software task force	5 min	Mike	See VIVO-contributed-software-taskforce-recommendations.pdf
6	Fall Seminar series	5 min	Mike	First discussion. Could be: 1) Intro to VIVO by Conlon (and any volunteers); 2) VIVO and Research Impact by Holmes (and any volunteers); 3) VIVO Development by Triggs (with help from community)
6	Fall hackathons/sprints	20 min	All	Topics, locations, timing. Ontology event? Developer bootcamp? Development sprint? Hackathon? Combinations?
8	Next meeting	5 min	All	Mike out

Notes

Updates
1. Tech lead hired. Graham Triggs, currently at Symplectic, starts September 21.
2. Steering Group nominations. See 2015 Procedure for Adding Members to the Steering Group
  1. From Leadership. 3 to be elected. Three nominations received
  2. From Community. 2 to be elected. Four nominations received
3. Roadmap process. 39 surveys returned. Task force forming.
4. Membership drive. 54 prospects emailed a joint letter from Mike and Debra
5. Scott Hanscom has replaced Melanie Gardner as PI for the USDA VIVO implementation
6. Asset inventory has completed a report. They will meet to review and conclude and send the report forward. Two weeks.
7. Mike is having conversations with Barend Mons and Albert Mons regarding their desired role for VIVO in Horizon2020 and the European Open Science Cloud. Barend would like VIVO to take a lead role in representing information about attribution and provenance of attribution, along with annotation of entries in the cloud. Could lead to a funded pilot project.
8. Mike will be in Dagstuhl Germany for a week-long seminar next week. See http://www.dagstuhl.de/en/program/calendar/semhp/?semnr=15302
Conference Updates – deferred to future meeting
Augmenting the Steering Committee
1. Received enough nominations to fill all the slots we have available – 3 for leadership where we need 3, and 4 for community where we have 2 slots
2. Propose to do a communication on the Leadership slots where we say 3 were nominated and 3 are to be elected so the slots are filled
  1. announced procedure stated that elections will be held the week of July 20 – will send another note after the July 19 update. Val Hollister and Kristi Searle will conduct the elections and provide results to Mike for communication. Blog post once both slates are filled.
3. Procedure for community liaisons where there is a real election needed, announced to be held the week of July 27
  1. contact each one to verify they are willing to serve
  2. ask each person for a couple hundred words to be circulated to the people who are voting as a short bio, since not everyone knows these people
    1. can the bios be inserted in the survey? Val and Kristi will conduct the election and are familiar with these processes.
  3. the procedure says the election is limited to the 23 community liaisons from the list of members
  4. Mike will announce this procedure in next week's VIVO update
  5. Can we use the same procedure as for the at-large board members, and can Val Hollister conduct the election? – Debra: yes
Roadmap Process
1. Very interesting – 39 respondents, with very good participation from the Leadership group (14 or so)
2. A PDF in the minutes
3. Green if in the top priority group, red if in the bottom, and grey if in the middle – and the check marks are items on which all three groups agreed was a top priority group
4. Fairly strong agreement on the end user features
5. Less clear agreement on the stewardship features
  1. looks like could dovetail with some of the contributed software efforts (around PubMed)
  2. also agreement about making evaluation of VIVO software easier
6. Technical features
  1. found the most overall agreement around a simpler and standard API – most of which can be done by the current SPARQL update API but requires learning the ontology and SPARQL, so the "simpler" part and being able to get JSON may have motivated this response
  2. See some apparent disagreement on removing features that do not work – 13 people from the community thought it was important, but few Leadership members and no Steering supported
  3. e.g., CSV upload – and surprising that ingest other than PubMed didn't rise higher (not stewards? to varied a community?) Why not ingest from DOI? Paul: ties to publisher-supplied metadata, that can be inconsistent
7. Jonathan – removing features that don't work, it's a blight to have things that don't work – either fix or remove, even if only by taking something out of a menu. No concensus needed, its a best practice and low effort.
8. We put all these items in front of people as a first effort, and we will have a task force to make some decisions that may take into account considerations like that
9. We can develop publication ingest from a remote source as 80% of the effort and then apply it to different sources more easily
10. Scoping these items is work, and tasks have to be better defined and scoped
  1. e.g., does improving visualizations mean replacing the entire visualization infrastructure or fixing the things we have now
  2. the task force will have to clarify assumptions, required or optional subfeatures, ways for staging over time, etc.as well as identify opportunity – how A takes you most of the way to B, or C you get via D that has to be done first
  3. 1. e.g., work in visualizations could contribute to modularization and help clarify improvements to the API
11. How to start the task force work?
  1. use case statements
  2. preliminary notes about likely scope of effort
  3. opportunities and synergies, possible factors affecting sequencing
12. Loop Graham in – keep him informed but leave it up to him how much he's comfortable participating
13. Who should be on the task force? Following discussion, Mike will put forth a slate to Steering and per task force procedures, announce to community.
14. What do we want to present to Leadership on August 10
  1. Don't want to present them a whole bunch of questions to decide – want to reflect their input so far and organize thoughts into a coherent number of big-level things (about 5), that may include sweeping a few things under a common major topic
  2. Things we can explain in terms of projected effort, volunteer interest, expected impact, and why we think those might be the top things
  3. It's worth thinking about how to spread the effort across different skill levels, highlighting how there's lots of work that doesn't require Java programming or even any technical knowledge (use cases, requirements, communication, testing) – and projecting mixed-skill teams
Report of the Contributed Software task force – see attached report
1. Mike proposes a BOF at the conference around the notion of VIVO Labs, and this report could serve as a pre-charter for VIVO Labs
Fall Seminar series. Deferred to a future meeting.
Fall hackathons/sprints. Deferred to a future meeting.
Next meeting
1. Mike will be out – Dean will convene

Action Items

Mike – communicate in VIVO notes about the leadership candidates
Mike – communicate to Leadership Committee about the choices
Mike – communicate the 3 new members of Leadership
Mike – communicate about the Steering election