Present:
Apologies:
The previous minutes were agreed.
Matters arising:
1. CEIRE '98 had been a successful RE event. RENOIR had made a substantial contribution to CEIRE, both as a sponsor and through RENOIR personnel working as members of the organizing committee. RENOIR had underwritten the event, but it seemed unlikely that any further funds would be required. The exact situation will be clear when the full set of CEIRE accounts are made by the RESG’s treasurer.
2. A similar event next year should be supported, although there would be benefits in moving away from the "conference" model towards an "RE day". DC suggested that the event could be outside the UK. The Board would consider the possibility of holding the event in Germany. ACTION MG, ACWF
3.There remained a need to pull organisations, especially from industry, into certain Network activities. This could be in the form of funding certain outside the Network to attend specific RENOIR-sponsored events. The purpose is not to give money to industry, rather to equip the RE champions in industry with help in encouraging their colleagues to commit to participating in RENOIR activities to enhance both RE technology transfer, and researchers' awareness of industrial RE problems. It was agreed that allowing such sponsorship on a case-by-case basis, and in a regulated way, was a reasonable way to progress some of the Network's objectives. DC explained that certain other networks allowed some members of the industry to join, without them necessarily qualifying as "centres of excellence".
4. DC told he Board that ESPRIT was officially joining DGXIII from 1/11/98.
2. Notifications of items under AOB:
none
3. Director's Report
1. ACWF reported that the extension of RENOIR’s term has been granted until the end of May, 2000. The network has been very successful in attracting members of high quality. Considerably more cohesion in the Network is now evident.
2. ACWF reported that two researchers had been taken on: Andrea Zisman, who was already in place and Sofia Guerra who will join UCL on 1/11/98. These appointments were made to enable the Network to be more proactive.
3. DC explained that he foresees that networks will be routinely reviewed towards the end of their funding periods, and noted that this would be especially important should there be a follow-on proposal.
4. Membership matters
4.1 Applications for membership have been received from
the Open University,
Tilburg
SRI.
After discussion, all three were admitted. SRI would not receive funding from RENOIR. RENOIR would in this case be responsible for ensuring that the EC rules were met.
4.2 DC suggested that RENOIR consider the possibility of stimulating the establishment of an "American RENOIR" Network, who get funding from American sources, so as to facilitate the exchange of expertise between them and the European RENOIR. ACTION: ACWF, GHG
4.3 As regards the issue of the formal membership letter (also referred to as the "Contract") requested from members, DC explained that the exact format of the declaration of committment on any member's part to the objectives of the network in such a letter is a matter for the Network itself to decide. As such, the Commission does not wish to intervene in this aspect of the Network.
5. Funding
5.1 Bids approved by the Director since the last meeting were tabled. 29 bids had been made, totaling 25.5 K ECU. Only 7 of the bids were related to the recent CEIRE event. The Director explained that activity funding has been deliberately supporting activities aiming at link-building with other specialties in the RE communities, so as to help cross-fertilization of ideas and technology transfer. This is now showing in the network bids, for example between researchers interested in Software Architecture, FMERail and the German RENOIR meeting.
DC asked whether RENOIR was monitoring the "hit rate" of the activity reports submitted. This would be considered, although there was a feeling that the person-to-person contacts arising from visits to conferences etc. were the most effective way of sparking research collaboration. The reports were more useful as a tracking device for the centre.
5.2 There was a bid from Universidad de Murcia. The Board agreed to fund the costs of the invited speaker (Prof. Stefano Ceri) (£300,000 pts; 1790 ECU) and half the bid for help with publishing proceedings (1/2 of 275,000 pts = 137500 pts = 820 ECU).
The Co-ordinator would write to explain the position. RENOIR funding was explicitly for RE i.e. we would be funding the RE track at the conference, and the RENOIR logo should be on the proceedings. ACTION GHG
5.3 The budget was accepted as tabled.
6. Progress of the executive and committee initiatives
6.1 Roadmap and Roadshow. ACWF reported that:
- Andrea Zisman would be coordinating network activity on the Roadmap, with the Board members as appropriate. ACTION ACWF
6.2 Research training (MG reporting):
- MG had attended the doctoral consortium organised by Steve Easterbrook, which was held in association with the ASE conference. Two further doctoral consortia were in the pipeline, including one at RE99.
- MG has lost a researcher working on the research training data-base, but a new researcher is in place. Work is currently under way to modify the database to make it accessible using popular browsers, easier to view and allow it to evolve more easily.
- liaison with industry continued
- a "Euroschool" on RE was planned for next year (1999), possibly in conjunction with RE day.
- A third RENOIR mini-workshop is being considered for 2000.
6.3 Research Co-ordination.
ACWF reported a significant new technical development which has far reaching implications for research co-ordination in terms of exchange and infrastructure. Briefly it will facilitate document exchange using XML to create a RE mark-up language. Andrea is exploring the possibility of its use in RENOIR. They will report by Xmas.
KR reported that he had:
- visited a number of academic members, including PUC-RIO’s (Brazil) RE day in which he presented, as well as Oregon.
- been involved with RE 99
The visits had borne fruit in that some research teams had begun working together. KR noted that there will be a bid for funding from RE 99 and that it would clash directly with INCOSE.
ACWF suggested that the organizational links should be strengthened, perhaps by investigating the possibility of RENOIR’s affiliation to INCOSE as an institutional member. ACTION: ACWF, GHG
6.4 Infrastructure.
RENOIR infrastructure was working apart from glitches. The web site had been vastly improved.
6.5 Industrial liaison.
- BAF reported that a number of visits to the industry, by teams comprising her and one other Board member, have been made. They all went very well, and RENOIR has been welcomed by the industrial nodes visited.
- There are divergent views between the industry and academia.
- There are issues of the format in which the results of these visits are going to be published, and of how to put the industry in touch with the relevant academia.
- Industry seems very interested in workshops.
7. Administrative matters
GHG asked that Board members submit reports early to avoid a last minute rush. ACTION ALL
GHG reported that RENOIR members have been asked, via the web pages, to submit bids that require the Board’s decision to be submitted well before the respective board meeting. The same applies to new membership applications.
MG asked members to point out suitable students for the PhD consortia (with RE 99 7-11th June) ACTION ALL
8. Calendar and future meetings
The 9th meeting of the Executive Board will be held in conjunction with the IFIP WG2.9 and RE’99 PC meetings, to take place on 23rd January, 1999 in Florida.
The 10th meeting t.b.d. during the second half of April 98.