NOTE that this meeting was over VC and it was not a full TTC meeting.


Apologies: Peter Szgedi, Alessandra Schicchitano.


Last minutes approved. A review of the action followed.

20150708-01 - To start the preparation for the SIG-NGN
1/2 day Discussion at the next architecture workshop. A steering committee (Brook, Rob, Michael E, Tony Breach) created to get agenda items going, prepare the agenda etc.

Michael E and Brook won't be able to attend the event.

20150708-02 - Closed

20150708-03 - still OPEN

20150708-04 OPEN (it was for the f-2-f) meeting

20150210-2 - Closed

TF-MNM - NH noted the TF is not a failure, the TF did a great job and it's time to move on. Some of the items may be picked up in the new NGN SIG.

VN  said he agreed to talk to the chair to get his view on the possible shut down of the group. 

20150930 Action: JH and VN to work on a news item on the outcome of TF-MSP.

Presentation on new Community Innovation Programme

Valter presented the key points of the Community Innovation Programme. 

Q1: PSc - What will happen if the TTC will disappear ? 

We need a group of people to champion the work of TFs and SIGs inside and outside the community. Should the EC funding disappear, the community would like the work of the TFs and SIGs to continue. 

Q2: If the bar is raised too high people will move elsewhere? The secretariat support is the most valuable thing , but if this is not needed for everything; the main value is organising meetings under the name of GEANT, which facilitate things. 
There are different levels to fit different type of approaches, from SIGs to projects. 

Q3: What’s the definition of the community?
The community has not been defined on purpose to fit the most general purpose. 

Q4: DG noted that it’s good there is no differentiation among different TFs or SIGs

Q5: Will there be TFs left in the future? 
Does this matter? 

Q6: How does the TTC can make statements and recommendations and push them to the community and to GEANT? 

Q7: Short lived approach is something we should look at as opposed to the GNx project. 

Q8: YM commented on the Interaction with the GPPC - shift in the EC wrt funding. Less budget available for GNx and the GPPC is looking at alternative EC fundings for some of the work that cannot fit under the core of the GNx project. Maybe a more active role for the TTC to complement what the GPPC does. 
ACTION: find a collaboration with the GPPC for work that won’t be incorporate with the GNx project. 

Q9: For EC proposals that are not funded should we propose a SIG or a TF as fall back? 

Q10: Let’s not get to hang up on PMF when we do innovation 

  • No labels