3 Jun
2024
3 Jun
'24
8:22 a.m.
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I'm keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn't complete negate the need
for Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any
major breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the
JIRA board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know
what we're doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we're not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone - 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
3 Jun
3 Jun
9:29 a.m.
I'm happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency... I'm not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I'm keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn't complete negate the need
for Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any
major breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the
JIRA board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know
what we're doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we're not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone - 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
9:51 a.m.
I agree with Steve on that one: I don’t think we need to provide full discussion.
I also think bringing instruments up to date with latest mantid version shouldn’t
necessarily be an EPIC. I’d be interested to know how long it takes to do Vesuvio. Moving
to new python shouldn’t be too onerous and putting some of their existing workflow as
automated testing should not be either (or we are doing something wrong).
Sent from my iPhone
On 3 Jun 2024, at 10:29, Stephen King - STFC UKRI <stephen.king(a)stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
I’m happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency… I’m not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I’m keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn’t complete negate the need for
Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any major
breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the JIRA
board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know what
we’re doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we’re not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone – 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
<image001.png>
_______________________________________________
Mantid Programme Board mailing list -- mpb(a)mantidproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to mpb-leave(a)mantidproject.org
9:59 a.m.
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I'd rather share just the high level parts (epic
comments and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should
also offer a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing
boxes.
I'd be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I'll
have a go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I'm back in early
july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI <stephen.king(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency... I'm not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I'm keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn't complete negate the need
for Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any
major breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the
JIRA board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know
what we're doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we're not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone - 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
4 Jun
4 Jun
7:02 a.m.
I'm really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don't need the full details going out.
I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI <david.voneshen(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king(a)stfc.ac.uk>uk>; mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I'd rather share just the high level parts (epic
comments and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should
also offer a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing
boxes.
I'd be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I'll
have a go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I'm back in early
july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency... I'm not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I'm keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn't complete negate the need
for Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any
major breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the
JIRA board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know
what we're doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we're not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone - 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
8:34 a.m.
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don't want to record the discussion, just the
conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen(a)stfc.ac.uk>uk>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king(a)stfc.ac.uk>uk>; mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don't need the full details going out.
I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I'd rather share just the high level parts (epic
comments and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should
also offer a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing
boxes.
I'd be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I'll
have a go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I'm back in early
july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency... I'm not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I'm keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn't complete negate the need
for Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any
major breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the
JIRA board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know
what we're doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we're not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone - 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
6 Jun
6 Jun
1:58 p.m.
Hi All,
An attempt at a summary for circulation is attached. Thoughts and comments welcome. I did
this very quickly from memory so there are likely many issues within.
David
From: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.cottrell(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 04 June 2024 09:35
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Cc: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen(a)stfc.ac.uk>uk>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king(a)stfc.ac.uk>uk>; mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don't want to record the discussion, just the
conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don't need the full details going out.
I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I'd rather share just the high level parts (epic
comments and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should
also offer a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing
boxes.
I'd be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I'll
have a go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I'm back in early
july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency... I'm not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I'm keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn't complete negate the need
for Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any
major breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the
JIRA board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know
what we're doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we're not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone - 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
7 Jun
7 Jun
11:43 a.m.
I like it, David. I've added in the Pol-SANS Epic too, but then needed to wordsmith a
bit to keep it to a single side... :) See what you think!
Steve
From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 06 June 2024 14:59
To: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.cottrell(a)stfc.ac.uk>uk>; Foxley, Sarah
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Cc: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king(a)stfc.ac.uk>uk>; mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi All,
An attempt at a summary for circulation is attached. Thoughts and comments welcome. I did
this very quickly from memory so there are likely many issues within.
David
From: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 04 June 2024 09:35
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don't want to record the discussion, just the
conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don't need the full details going out.
I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I'd rather share just the high level parts (epic
comments and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should
also offer a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing
boxes.
I'd be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I'll
have a go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I'm back in early
july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency... I'm not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I'm keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn't complete negate the need
for Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any
major breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the
JIRA board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know
what we're doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we're not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone - 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
11 Jun
11 Jun
11:26 a.m.
I have to say I do like this - I feel it gives enough information without it being overly
detailed or a direct copy of the minutes.
Is this something we can review at tomorrow's meeting?
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI <stephen.king(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 07 June 2024 12:43
To: mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I like it, David. I've added in the Pol-SANS Epic too, but then needed to wordsmith a
bit to keep it to a single side... :) See what you think!
Steve
From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 06 June 2024 14:59
To: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>; Foxley,
Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi All,
An attempt at a summary for circulation is attached. Thoughts and comments welcome. I did
this very quickly from memory so there are likely many issues within.
David
From: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 04 June 2024 09:35
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don't want to record the discussion, just the
conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don't need the full details going out.
I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I'd rather share just the high level parts (epic
comments and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should
also offer a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing
boxes.
I'd be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I'll
have a go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I'm back in early
july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency... I'm not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I'm keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn't complete negate the need
for Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any
major breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the
JIRA board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know
what we're doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we're not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone - 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
13 Jun
13 Jun
9:22 a.m.
Are we happy for these minutes to be circulated?
My plan is to
- E-mail it to the Mantid Team for reference
- E-mail it to All Epic Owners and Stakeholders as well as sending them a link to
the new Epic page (the soft launch I mentioned yesterday)
In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message would it make
sense for Anders to do that as Chair?
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI <stephen.king(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 07 June 2024 12:43
To: mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I like it, David. I've added in the Pol-SANS Epic too, but then needed to wordsmith a
bit to keep it to a single side... :) See what you think!
Steve
From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 06 June 2024 14:59
To: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>; Foxley,
Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi All,
An attempt at a summary for circulation is attached. Thoughts and comments welcome. I did
this very quickly from memory so there are likely many issues within.
David
From: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 04 June 2024 09:35
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don't want to record the discussion, just the
conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don't need the full details going out.
I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I'd rather share just the high level parts (epic
comments and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should
also offer a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing
boxes.
I'd be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I'll
have a go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I'm back in early
july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency... I'm not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I'm keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn't complete negate the need
for Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any
major breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the
JIRA board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know
what we're doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we're not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone - 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
2:18 p.m.
I vote:
Yes
Yes
:)
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 13 June 2024 10:23
To: mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Are we happy for these minutes to be circulated?
My plan is to
- E-mail it to the Mantid Team for reference
- E-mail it to All Epic Owners and Stakeholders as well as sending them a link to
the new Epic page (the soft launch I mentioned yesterday)
In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message would it make
sense for Anders to do that as Chair?
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 07 June 2024 12:43
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I like it, David. I've added in the Pol-SANS Epic too, but then needed to wordsmith a
bit to keep it to a single side... :) See what you think!
Steve
From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 06 June 2024 14:59
To: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>; Foxley,
Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi All,
An attempt at a summary for circulation is attached. Thoughts and comments welcome. I did
this very quickly from memory so there are likely many issues within.
David
From: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 04 June 2024 09:35
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don't want to record the discussion, just the
conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don't need the full details going out.
I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I'd rather share just the high level parts (epic
comments and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should
also offer a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing
boxes.
I'd be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I'll
have a go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I'm back in early
july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I'm happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency... I'm not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I'm keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn't complete negate the need
for Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any
major breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the
JIRA board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know
what we're doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we're not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone - 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
14 Jun
14 Jun
3:04 p.m.
OK from me. FI blocked out time to look at your sharepoint epic page next week.
With regards to “In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message”
not really sure if best come from me or from one or more of the science area
representatives. Any comments welcome. The added purpose from memory to send to group
leaders were 1) (from Steve K) not all group leaders aware of what is going on in their
groups😊 2) stimulate increased isis awareness/engagement with process?
Have good weekend and Sarah have a nice week off next week.
Best,
Anders
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 10:23 AM
To: mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Are we happy for these minutes to be circulated?
My plan is to
* E-mail it to the Mantid Team for reference
* E-mail it to All Epic Owners and Stakeholders as well as sending them a link to the
new Epic page (the soft launch I mentioned yesterday)
In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message would it make
sense for Anders to do that as Chair?
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 07 June 2024 12:43
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I like it, David. I’ve added in the Pol-SANS Epic too, but then needed to wordsmith a bit
to keep it to a single side… ☺ See what you think!
Steve
From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 06 June 2024 14:59
To: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>; Foxley,
Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi All,
An attempt at a summary for circulation is attached. Thoughts and comments welcome. I did
this very quickly from memory so there are likely many issues within.
David
From: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 04 June 2024 09:35
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don’t want to record the discussion, just the
conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don’t need the full details going out.
I’m looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I’d rather share just the high level parts (epic comments
and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should also offer
a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing boxes.
I’d be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I’ll have a
go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I’m back in early july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency… I’m not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I’m keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn’t complete negate the need for
Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any major
breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the JIRA
board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know what
we’re doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we’re not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone – 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
24 Jun
24 Jun
12:01 p.m.
Now that I’m back from leave and as I haven’t heard anything to the contrary I will add
the reduced minutes (the ones edited by Steve King) to the website and then set about
e-mailing the Mantid Team and Epic Owners and Stakeholders.
In terms of group leaders can we put together a list of the group leaders we plan to
contact and then from there work out who is best to contact them?
Thanks
Sarah
From: Markvardsen, Anders (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <anders.markvardsen(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 14 June 2024 16:05
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk>uk>; mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
OK from me. FI blocked out time to look at your sharepoint epic page next week.
With regards to “In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message”
not really sure if best come from me or from one or more of the science area
representatives. Any comments welcome. The added purpose from memory to send to group
leaders were 1) (from Steve K) not all group leaders aware of what is going on in their
groups😊 2) stimulate increased isis awareness/engagement with process?
Have good weekend and Sarah have a nice week off next week.
Best,
Anders
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 10:23 AM
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Are we happy for these minutes to be circulated?
My plan is to
- E-mail it to the Mantid Team for reference
- E-mail it to All Epic Owners and Stakeholders as well as sending them a link to
the new Epic page (the soft launch I mentioned yesterday)
In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message would it make
sense for Anders to do that as Chair?
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 07 June 2024 12:43
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I like it, David. I’ve added in the Pol-SANS Epic too, but then needed to wordsmith a bit
to keep it to a single side… ☺ See what you think!
Steve
From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 06 June 2024 14:59
To: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>; Foxley,
Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi All,
An attempt at a summary for circulation is attached. Thoughts and comments welcome. I did
this very quickly from memory so there are likely many issues within.
David
From: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 04 June 2024 09:35
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don’t want to record the discussion, just the
conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don’t need the full details going out.
I’m looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I’d rather share just the high level parts (epic comments
and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should also offer
a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing boxes.
I’d be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I’ll have a
go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I’m back in early july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency… I’m not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I’m keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn’t complete negate the need for
Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any major
breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the JIRA
board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know what
we’re doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we’re not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone – 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
12:22 p.m.
Hi Sarah,
So I would suggest circulating to the science directorate division heads and their group
leaders. And Sean as well, of course.
https://stfc365.sharepoint.com/sites/isis-hub/SiteAssets/SitePages/ISIS%20O…
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 24 June 2024 13:01
To: mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Now that I’m back from leave and as I haven’t heard anything to the contrary I will add
the reduced minutes (the ones edited by Steve King) to the website and then set about
e-mailing the Mantid Team and Epic Owners and Stakeholders.
In terms of group leaders can we put together a list of the group leaders we plan to
contact and then from there work out who is best to contact them?
Thanks
Sarah
From: Markvardsen, Anders (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<anders.markvardsen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:anders.markvardsen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 14 June 2024 16:05
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
OK from me. FI blocked out time to look at your sharepoint epic page next week.
With regards to “In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message”
not really sure if best come from me or from one or more of the science area
representatives. Any comments welcome. The added purpose from memory to send to group
leaders were 1) (from Steve K) not all group leaders aware of what is going on in their
groups😊 2) stimulate increased isis awareness/engagement with process?
Have good weekend and Sarah have a nice week off next week.
Best,
Anders
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 10:23 AM
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Are we happy for these minutes to be circulated?
My plan is to
- E-mail it to the Mantid Team for reference
- E-mail it to All Epic Owners and Stakeholders as well as sending them a link to
the new Epic page (the soft launch I mentioned yesterday)
In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message would it make
sense for Anders to do that as Chair?
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 07 June 2024 12:43
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I like it, David. I’ve added in the Pol-SANS Epic too, but then needed to wordsmith a bit
to keep it to a single side… ☺ See what you think!
Steve
From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 06 June 2024 14:59
To: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>; Foxley,
Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi All,
An attempt at a summary for circulation is attached. Thoughts and comments welcome. I did
this very quickly from memory so there are likely many issues within.
David
From: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 04 June 2024 09:35
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don’t want to record the discussion, just the
conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don’t need the full details going out.
I’m looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I’d rather share just the high level parts (epic comments
and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should also offer
a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing boxes.
I’d be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I’ll have a
go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I’m back in early july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency… I’m not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I’m keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn’t complete negate the need for
Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any major
breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the JIRA
board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know what
we’re doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we’re not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone – 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
12:57 p.m.
Thank you for that link Steve. I agree with Division Heads and Group leaders – that makes
sense.
We still need a volunteer (or several volunteers if more appropriate) to do that.
Meanwhile I have circulated to the Mantid Team, Epic Owners and Epic Stakeholders
(including those of you on the board who are listed as such so you can see what I’ve
said).
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI <stephen.king(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 24 June 2024 13:22
To: mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi Sarah,
So I would suggest circulating to the science directorate division heads and their group
leaders. And Sean as well, of course.
https://stfc365.sharepoint.com/sites/isis-hub/SiteAssets/SitePages/ISIS%20O…
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 24 June 2024 13:01
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Now that I’m back from leave and as I haven’t heard anything to the contrary I will add
the reduced minutes (the ones edited by Steve King) to the website and then set about
e-mailing the Mantid Team and Epic Owners and Stakeholders.
In terms of group leaders can we put together a list of the group leaders we plan to
contact and then from there work out who is best to contact them?
Thanks
Sarah
From: Markvardsen, Anders (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<anders.markvardsen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:anders.markvardsen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 14 June 2024 16:05
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
OK from me. FI blocked out time to look at your sharepoint epic page next week.
With regards to “In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message”
not really sure if best come from me or from one or more of the science area
representatives. Any comments welcome. The added purpose from memory to send to group
leaders were 1) (from Steve K) not all group leaders aware of what is going on in their
groups😊 2) stimulate increased isis awareness/engagement with process?
Have good weekend and Sarah have a nice week off next week.
Best,
Anders
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 10:23 AM
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Are we happy for these minutes to be circulated?
My plan is to
- E-mail it to the Mantid Team for reference
- E-mail it to All Epic Owners and Stakeholders as well as sending them a link to
the new Epic page (the soft launch I mentioned yesterday)
In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message would it make
sense for Anders to do that as Chair?
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 07 June 2024 12:43
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I like it, David. I’ve added in the Pol-SANS Epic too, but then needed to wordsmith a bit
to keep it to a single side… ☺ See what you think!
Steve
From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 06 June 2024 14:59
To: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>; Foxley,
Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi All,
An attempt at a summary for circulation is attached. Thoughts and comments welcome. I did
this very quickly from memory so there are likely many issues within.
David
From: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 04 June 2024 09:35
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don’t want to record the discussion, just the
conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don’t need the full details going out.
I’m looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I’d rather share just the high level parts (epic comments
and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should also offer
a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing boxes.
I’d be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I’ll have a
go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I’m back in early july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency… I’m not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I’m keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn’t complete negate the need for
Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any major
breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the JIRA
board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know what
we’re doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we’re not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone – 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
3:35 p.m.
You mean who should send the triaged epic list to DH/GL’s, Sarah?
Personally, I would see that as the responsibility of Anders, yourself or Januka.
But if you are worried that some recipients might receive the list unfavourably if it came
from one of you three the delivering email could make the collective responsibility of the
Board clear.
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 24 June 2024 13:57
To: mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Thank you for that link Steve. I agree with Division Heads and Group leaders – that makes
sense.
We still need a volunteer (or several volunteers if more appropriate) to do that.
Meanwhile I have circulated to the Mantid Team, Epic Owners and Epic Stakeholders
(including those of you on the board who are listed as such so you can see what I’ve
said).
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 24 June 2024 13:22
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi Sarah,
So I would suggest circulating to the science directorate division heads and their group
leaders. And Sean as well, of course.
https://stfc365.sharepoint.com/sites/isis-hub/SiteAssets/SitePages/ISIS%20O…
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 24 June 2024 13:01
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Now that I’m back from leave and as I haven’t heard anything to the contrary I will add
the reduced minutes (the ones edited by Steve King) to the website and then set about
e-mailing the Mantid Team and Epic Owners and Stakeholders.
In terms of group leaders can we put together a list of the group leaders we plan to
contact and then from there work out who is best to contact them?
Thanks
Sarah
From: Markvardsen, Anders (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<anders.markvardsen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:anders.markvardsen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 14 June 2024 16:05
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
OK from me. FI blocked out time to look at your sharepoint epic page next week.
With regards to “In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message”
not really sure if best come from me or from one or more of the science area
representatives. Any comments welcome. The added purpose from memory to send to group
leaders were 1) (from Steve K) not all group leaders aware of what is going on in their
groups😊 2) stimulate increased isis awareness/engagement with process?
Have good weekend and Sarah have a nice week off next week.
Best,
Anders
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 10:23 AM
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Are we happy for these minutes to be circulated?
My plan is to
- E-mail it to the Mantid Team for reference
- E-mail it to All Epic Owners and Stakeholders as well as sending them a link to
the new Epic page (the soft launch I mentioned yesterday)
In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message would it make
sense for Anders to do that as Chair?
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 07 June 2024 12:43
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I like it, David. I’ve added in the Pol-SANS Epic too, but then needed to wordsmith a bit
to keep it to a single side… ☺ See what you think!
Steve
From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 06 June 2024 14:59
To: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>; Foxley,
Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi All,
An attempt at a summary for circulation is attached. Thoughts and comments welcome. I did
this very quickly from memory so there are likely many issues within.
David
From: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 04 June 2024 09:35
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don’t want to record the discussion, just the
conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don’t need the full details going out.
I’m looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I’d rather share just the high level parts (epic comments
and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should also offer
a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing boxes.
I’d be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I’ll have a
go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I’m back in early july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency… I’m not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I’m keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn’t complete negate the need for
Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any major
breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the JIRA
board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know what
we’re doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we’re not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone – 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
3:36 p.m.
It should probably come from the chair.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI <stephen.king(a)stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 24 June 2024 16:35
To: mpb(a)mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
You mean who should send the triaged epic list to DH/GL’s, Sarah?
Personally, I would see that as the responsibility of Anders, yourself or Januka.
But if you are worried that some recipients might receive the list unfavourably if it came
from one of you three the delivering email could make the collective responsibility of the
Board clear.
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 24 June 2024 13:57
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Thank you for that link Steve. I agree with Division Heads and Group leaders – that makes
sense.
We still need a volunteer (or several volunteers if more appropriate) to do that.
Meanwhile I have circulated to the Mantid Team, Epic Owners and Epic Stakeholders
(including those of you on the board who are listed as such so you can see what I’ve
said).
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 24 June 2024 13:22
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi Sarah,
So I would suggest circulating to the science directorate division heads and their group
leaders. And Sean as well, of course.
https://stfc365.sharepoint.com/sites/isis-hub/SiteAssets/SitePages/ISIS%20O…
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 24 June 2024 13:01
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Now that I’m back from leave and as I haven’t heard anything to the contrary I will add
the reduced minutes (the ones edited by Steve King) to the website and then set about
e-mailing the Mantid Team and Epic Owners and Stakeholders.
In terms of group leaders can we put together a list of the group leaders we plan to
contact and then from there work out who is best to contact them?
Thanks
Sarah
From: Markvardsen, Anders (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<anders.markvardsen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:anders.markvardsen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 14 June 2024 16:05
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
OK from me. FI blocked out time to look at your sharepoint epic page next week.
With regards to “In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message”
not really sure if best come from me or from one or more of the science area
representatives. Any comments welcome. The added purpose from memory to send to group
leaders were 1) (from Steve K) not all group leaders aware of what is going on in their
groups😊 2) stimulate increased isis awareness/engagement with process?
Have good weekend and Sarah have a nice week off next week.
Best,
Anders
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 10:23 AM
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Are we happy for these minutes to be circulated?
My plan is to
- E-mail it to the Mantid Team for reference
- E-mail it to All Epic Owners and Stakeholders as well as sending them a link to
the new Epic page (the soft launch I mentioned yesterday)
In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message would it make
sense for Anders to do that as Chair?
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 07 June 2024 12:43
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I like it, David. I’ve added in the Pol-SANS Epic too, but then needed to wordsmith a bit
to keep it to a single side… ☺ See what you think!
Steve
From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 06 June 2024 14:59
To: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>; Foxley,
Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi All,
An attempt at a summary for circulation is attached. Thoughts and comments welcome. I did
this very quickly from memory so there are likely many issues within.
David
From: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 04 June 2024 09:35
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Cc: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don’t want to record the discussion, just the
conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>; King, Stephen
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I
agree we don’t need the full details going out.
I’m looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI
<david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>;
mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some
delivery is very helpful, but I’d rather share just the high level parts (epic comments
and outcomes). These should be at the level of a couple of sentences. We should also offer
a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing boxes.
I’d be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and
then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should
fit on 1 page that way people might read it as well! If I have time this week I’ll have a
go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I’m back in early july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too
much transparency… I’m not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the
prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary),
can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have
full and frank discussions, but the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised
comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI
<sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org<mailto:mpb@mantidproject.org>
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June
(details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it
to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what
about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will
hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion
around the Vesuvio epic I’m keen to encourage other instruments/science areas that are
sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only
would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing
for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn’t complete negate the need for
Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any major
breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the JIRA
board only a limited number of people have access to this and so most will not know what
we’re doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would
like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and
why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they are. It has not been a problem
so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision
making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached
a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms
Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process with board oversight. Epics
are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to
make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we
do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information
first before making it more widely available. I think it will cause a lot of upset if an
Epic Owner finds out we’re not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than
reaching out to them personally.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone – 01235 446938
sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org<mailto:sarah.foxley@stfc.ukri.org>
She/Her/Hers
[stfc_logo]
84
days inactive
105
days old
16 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Anders Markvardsen - STFC UKRI -
David Voneshen - STFC UKRI -
Pascal Manuel - STFC UKRI -
Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI -
Stephen Cottrell - STFC UKRI -
Stephen King - STFC UKRI