---
# System prepended metadata

title: Meeting Minute
tags: [Meeting, Templates]

---

Meeting Minute
===

###### tags: `Templates` `Meeting`

:::info
- **Location:**   https://utexas.zoom.us/my/kimray 
- **Date:** Thursday, June 6th at 6 am PT / 3 pm CEST
- **Participants:**
    - Kim Ray
    - Ariel Rokem
    - Yaroslav Halchenko
    - Camille Maumet
    - Dora Hermes
    - Cyril Pernet
    - BIDS Maintainer: none
    - Guest: Franco Pestilli
- **Agenda**

1. Franco: ??? 
2. HackMD : how's that working for us? `2min`
    > [name=suggested by Ariel]
4. OHBM prep `5min`
	> [name=suggested by Kim Ray]


- **Host:** Kim Ray
- **Contact:**  <kimray@utexas.edu>
- **Reference:** - [Previous meeting minutes]([/s/template-meeting-note](https://hackmd.io/@kimberlylray/H1MCHP8MR/edit))

:::

:books: Meeting Minutes
---
**HackMD transition**
- Meeting #2 using HackMD


**Franco Pestilli:  Connectivty BEP concerns **
- they are making slow progress, however there is no timeline structure.  
    - BEPs become stuck
    - feedback comments vary greatly in source, location, and severity
    - not grant timeline friendly becuase grants have time and funding limits but BEPS can be drawn out beyond the grant. 
- Committee Comments, questions, concerns
    - CM: what kinds of comments are delaying BEP progress?  and should these comments be evaluated by the BEP lead? 
    - FP: historically the BEP lead made those higher level decisions of which comments to address.  however these BEPs had a larger group of contributors and did not always have a strong, single lead to make those decisions. It also was not clear how quickly comments should be resolved, this became problematic where comments were not very clear. 
    - DH: The assumption has been that comments could be resolved by the BEP lead, should this be outlined somewhere more clearly? 
    - AR: We can use prior experience to more clearly outline what is a BEP lead suposed to do based on previous BEP successes and struggles. We shoud designate where work should be organized (which github accounts for making PRs, google docs etc). 
    - FP: we need to write down the timeline rules, be clear that all BIDS contributions should be kept in the BIDS github. 
    - YH: comments are difficult to manage, there are often social aspects to PRs as well. Perhaps large BEPs should require all changes be implemented via PR. Regarding grant timelines - perhaps these BEPS should have stronger leadership to push progress in order to maintain their established timeline (as much as allowable), adding more formal outlines of how contributors should interact could help with this. Maybe add a "reminder bot" that pings PRs/Issues after N weeks of no discussion to say something like "Seems like the discussion has ended? Does anyone want to add anything or should we close this?" 
    - CM: most BEPs arent grant supported, but it sounds like having a more explicit guide for leading BEPs would be beneficial for all BEPS moving forward. Responding to DH, who recalled reaching out to BIDS maintained for support when the BEP lead was not able to resolve a comment, this should be an added suggested for addressing complex PRs/isses/comments. Suggestion to write best practices on how to send/express comments. And guidelines on how/when to reach out to leadership (steering/maintainers).
    - DH: In some cases, the same issues are reiterated in multiple threads, this can be difficult to follow. Would we need guidelines for this as well? for example:  the inheretance principle in BIDS 2.0. 
    - AR: There are timelines in the BEP process for community review. The connectivity might have run into further issues becuase certain BEPs are not yet complete (don't have schema, examples), this should be the responsibility of the BEP lead to urge progress. Suggestion: outline this in the grant proposal.
    - CM: suggests open a working group to establish the role of the BEP lead. (supported by Cyril). 
    - AR: Work could be done in https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-extensions


**OHBM prep**
- Stickers? :heavy_check_mark: 
- Town hall slide presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yL46eZ7LB0eLE3hOMX6eWMlC3ZvRzeTCb-5xnNI_Qok/edit#slide=id.g25b24ad950a_0_267
- previous feedback was to limit the discuss on each individual BEP.  There are so many now and it will consume too much time.
- they prefer a single presenter for this.
-there are overall too many slides
-the slides that the steering group have 'hidden' are suggested to be removed, maybe this can all be summarized in a single slide? 
-keep the BIDS 2.0 slide, Yarik can comment on this.
-they'd like to have estimates on diversity at various levels of BEP leads, contributors (geographically, sex, etc), and they would like to use this as a mechanism to promote/encourage more Asia participants. How can we do better to be more inclusive to Asian imagers?
- Is Town Hall hybrid?  
    - no, only keynotes have those capabilities.
    - if OSR allows hybrid, then maybe we should move back to OSR or duplicate? hybrid option should be prioritized. 
- Have "confirmed participants" been looped in? 
    - yes they will attend and encourage attendance from their respective communities



:closed_book: Tasks
--
==Importance== (1 - 5) / Name 
### Steering Group:
- [ ] ==5== establish a working gorup for BEP lead guidelines.
- [x] ==4== reach out "confirmed" participants for discussion on Diversity during OHBM townhall
    - [x] ==4== Xinian Zuo <zuoxinian@gmail.com>``
    - [x] ==4== Dr Jong-Min Lee
- [ ] ==4== Will OHBM townhall be hybrid?
- [x] ==2== BIDS stickers for OHBM
- [ ] ==1== BIDS lunch at OHBM / Ariel


### Maintainers:

- [ ] ==4== include BIDS 2.0 on Roundtable slides / Yarik 
- [ ] ==4== include BIDS year of adoption on townhall slides
  - [ ] ==4== how can audience advocate for adoption 
  - [ ] ==2== involve audience

