# RSE Leaders Meeting April 2024

**Date:** Friday 12th April 2024

**Time:** 10am to 4pm

**Location:** Sidney Sussex College, Sidney Street, Cambridge CB2 3HU

**Zoom:**
https://cam-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/89244447453?pwd=RDRqQVo0UWlWVkZXczJSN1dLeVJVZz09

---

## Agenda

**10:00 - 11:00** – Arrival and refreshments (Breakout rooms open for online participants)

**11:00 - 11:30** – Welcome and overview of Cambridge RSE

**11:30 - 12:00** – External speaker: [Emily Shuckburgh](https://www.cst.cam.ac.uk/people/efs20)

**12:00 - 12:45** – [Discussion about scope and membership of RSE Leaders Group](#Discussion-about-scope-and-membership-of-RSE-Leaders-Group)

**12:45 - 13:30** – Lunch

**13:30 - 15:00** – [Short talks](#Short-talks)

**15:00 - 15:40** – Coffee and [discussions](#Discussion)

**15:40 - 15:55** – Report back

**15:55 - 16:00** – Wrap-up and closing

---

## Participants

- Chris Edsall, Head of RSE, Cambridge University (he/him, in-person)
- Marion Weinzierl, Senior RSE & Interim Engineering Co-Lead, ICCS, University of Cambridge (she/her, in-person)
- Mark Richardson, CEMAC, University of Leeds (remote)
- Philip Harrison, RSE Team Lead, IT Services, University of York (remote)
- Matt WIlliams, RSE/AI Supercomputing Infrastructure Specialist @ University of Bristol; President of the Society of Research Software Engineering (in-person)
- Romain Thomas, Head of RSE at University of Sheffield (Remote) (will have to leave between 11 and 13.30)
- Zeynep (Zey) Aki, RSE Team Co-lead, Durham University (Remote)
- Jonathan Cooper, Head of Collaborations and Principal RSE, UCL (remote)
- Dan Short, RSE Group Leader @ UKAEA (he/him, remote) (will be in an out for the afternoon sessions)
- Iain Barrass, Head of RSE, University of Glasgow, (remote)
- Adam Tyson, Head Research Engineer, Sainsbury Wellcome Centre & Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, UCL.
- Colin Sauze, Senior RSE, National Oceanography Centre (he/him, remote)
- Rich FitzJohn, RSE lead @ MRC Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial (he/him, in person)
- James Graham, Head of RSE, King's College London (he/him, in-person)
- Ilian Todorov, RSE/Computational Chemistry Lead, STFC Scientific Computing (he/him, in person)
- David Beavan, Principal RSE, Alan Turing Institue (he/him) and SocRSE Vice President
- Philip (Pip) Grylls, Senior RSE, University of Warwick (he/him, in person)
- Evelina Gabasova, Principal Research Data Scientist, The Alan Turing Institute (remote)
- Sam Bland, Embedded RSE at SEI York and N8CIR RSE Theme Lead (remote)
- Lyndsey Ballantyne, Community Manager @ Software Sustainability Institute & Trustee @ SocRSE (remote)
- Martin O'Reilly, Director of Research Engineering @ The Alan Turing Institute & Trustee @ SocRSE (in-person)
- Samantha Finnigan, Senior RSE & Acting Head of RSE @ Advanced Research Computing (ARC) Durham University (in-person)
- Jannetta Steyn, Senior Research Software Engineer, Newcastle University (remote)
- Christopher Cave-Ayland, RSE Technical Lead, Imperial College London (in-person)
- Sandra Gesing, Executive Director, US Research Software Engineer Association, Chicago, US (remote)
- Tom Meltzer, Senior RSE & Interim Engineering Co-Lead, ICCS, University of Cambridge (he/him, in-person)
- Jeremy Cohen, Advanced Research Fellow, Department of Computing and Director of Research Software Engineering Strategy, Imperial College London (he/him, remote)
- Hannah Williams, Principal RSE, Dstl (remote)
- Heather Turner, RSE Fellow/Associate Professor, Department of Statistics, University of Warwick (remote)
- Domhnall Carlin, RSE Fellow, Centre for Secure Information Technologies, Queen's University Belfast (remote)
---

### Discussion about scope and membership of RSE Leaders Group

**Questions/comments/discussion points/outcomes:**

- Maybe before asking who is it for it would be nice to define **what** is it for.
- The aspiring leaders component is very valuable for sustainability of the group and also promoting diversity.
- Group feels simultaneously both too small and too big for all the things we want from it
- There is a middle type of information we share at times that we don’t have (formal) permission to ‘publish’ so can’t be in a public forum, but is useful for other RSE groups to know.
- Value in "safe space" for folk with same shape of role / overlapping contex to discuss.
- e.g. challenge about running a team etc difficult with members of the team / benefits from strong trust / knowledge people will understand nuances / challenges
- Could this be addressed by smaller ad-hoc conversations between a few people, rather than a formal sub-group?
- Is there a risk of "in group" / not being exposed to more diverse views on the topic?
- Could another form of self-selection work (e.g. breakout session at meetings)? What about ad-hoc online / Slack type more responsive conversations.
- Current Slack channel (now 175 people) not small / safe enough for this type of conversation but safety etc also very context dependent
- Could an informal call for people to join a smaller conversation on Slack work?
- Could having a list of people willing / able to discuss particular issues (challenge to keep up to date / inclusive etc)
- Understand that the slack channel is more like a "kitchen" than a private area for sensitive topics (A GDPR approach. Think about anonimity - could people infer who's involved)
- Different groups for different conversation topics
- Value in being able for all members of the community to go to a clear set of "RSE leaders" to ask opinion of etc.
- Different types of "RSE Leaders", not just those running groups - e.g. regionally, interest groups, informal communities within organisations, those building up communities even in an organisation are not necessarily always those in formal power positions.
- One option could be to open current group and define smaller group(s) with clear membership criteria and access channel communicated in wider self-access / public group.
- Current purpose of RSE leaders group isn't well defined and isn't necessarily the same for all of us. Really multiple groups of overlapping sets of people and concerns.
- Key driver is that people often don't have local peers to discuss these things with and want to find others with similar contexts.
- If we don't have a clear "structured" group / set of groups then people will self-organise into "dark" groups
- Should definitely ensure aspiring leaders have access to current leaders.
- It sounds like we might want an open ‘rse-leadership’ Slack channel that’s discoverable, for aspiring leaders (or leaders we weren’t aware of) to join and ask questions, and separate private channel(s) for particular types of recognised leader.
- Current "RSE leaders" group (Slack channel or any subset of this) is not well defined. Should define clear scope and this should define membership. Could have separate mechanisms for this.
- Gatekeeping not necessarily bad. Perhaps more about clarity.
- Multiple people at different organisations in group can be challenging for some conversations but also different groups are different sizes / structures so also feels exclusionary if one per group.
- Regarding sharing senstive discussions, regardless of audience need to consider identifiability / GDPR etc
- How do organisations who maybe don't have a formal/well-defined RSE teams/functions, but have RSE people, engage with a "recognised" RSE leaders group?
- Knowing "who" is meeting / "in" the group (current or any future ones), visibility of the group's existence and how to join is key for those outside it.
- Could each group decide who should be in or out of a particular group or conversation? But not necessarily a clear person to decide for a particular organisation.
- Fixed criteria might be exclusionary. Perhaps better to have people pitch to be part of a group (e.g. people starting informal work to organise RSE community / structure / process) and have group accept or not.
- For those running groups they tend to think in group-orientated manner
- There are many different types of leadership/management/RSE groups
- You can get different types of RSE leadership role within the same group too. UCL is a particularly complex case now: we have Asif as “Head of Profession” for RSEs, me as head of the Collaborations team (the closest analogue for most central RSE groups but including more than RSEs here), and Principal RSEs leading various sub-groups of that too. And Adam leading an RSE team embedded within a research centre that is sharing some of our processes (including promotions) but doesn’t formally report to us in any way.
- And institutions which have formal/central groups _and_ the same informal postdocs-who-code in a research group.
- People could perhaps self-select which groups/topics they should be in
- Need to be clear and careful about what are the clear criteria, what might sub-groups look like, how do we find people. Is it discoverable? what are the groups? how do I get in?
- How do organisations who may not have formal structures for RSEs engage with other RSE leaders? Also those in organisations with formal RSE structures but who are themselves outside of those structures.
- Embedded RSEs keen not to be isolated and have benefitted from involvement.
- Ensure that any restrictions to the group have a clear path of entry. I.e. how do we go from non leader to leader and ensure this does not restrict diversity.
- Make the process of decision making open, but to form closed groups afterwards

**Next steps**

- Survey to community (at least RSE leaders but wider ideally)
- possibly mailing list of RSESoc?
- RSE leaders slack?
- RSE general slack?
- Share a discussion paper?
- Who should make the decision? How will it be made?
- Clearly write down / describe the things the current Slack group / meetings have been (fully or partially) doing / things we want to be doing better (whether more inclusivity or more focussed / defined subgroups)
- Cover different archetypes of leadership. Also helps people know what they are aspiring to (or where gaps are)
- Could / should we involve the Society in this? e.g. Leadership SIG?
- bring RSE Leaders as SIG under RSE soc in more formal way

**ACTION:** Chris and Marion to follow up with Lyndsey to create a survey which should be sent out as widely as possible

**Questions**
*Jonathan asks: Would these be multiple choice with people allowed to write in extra options?*

- Who should be a member of the RSE Leaders group (mailing list, Slack, Leaders meetings)?
- People who lead RSE groups
- People in various leadership roles (Regional RSE leaders, EPSRC RSE fellows, Senior RSEs with line management responsibility,...)
- Aspiring leaders
- UK-only or international
- What is the scope of the RSE Leaders group?
- Experience and knowledge exchange
- Networking
- Mentoring and guidance for aspiring and junior leaders
- Do we need to write Terms of Reference?

---

### Short talks

(max 10 mins each)

**James Graham:** *RSECon24 call for contributions*

https://rsecon24.society-rse.org/calls/

**Sam Bland:** *Challenges and Opportunities in the N8CIR*

A presentation on the current discussions within the N8CIR leaders.

- A discussion on the finance models used to include RSEs on project funding. Including the challenges of charging a day rate or swapping RSEs on a project. Also difficulties in avoiding double charging overheads when going down some routes.
- Timesheeting for RSEs. Including comparing timesheeting requirements and the reality. Compare in house vs propriety software use for timesheets. Implications of strict timesheeting on RSE well being, professional development time etc.
- Strategies that are in place for RSE career development and aligning experience or skills with banding
- RSE brokerage and secondments. Is it possible to get past the bureaucracy?
- What methods do we use for reaching RSEs and researchers with training that we offer and how successful have you been?

**Sandra Gesing:** *Empowering RSE Leaders: Fueling the Passion without Burning Out*

The RSE movement is internationally growing and relies mostly on volunteers. Generally there are quite a few per country involved in national RSE leadership. Most of the work is distributed on a few though. While these individuals are very passionate about improving the RSE ecosystem, the challenge is to protect them from burning out without stopping their enthusiasm. The talk will present some ideas for addressing this challenge.

**Domhnall Carlin:** *EPSRC RSE Fellowship: a just-over-midway update*

This brief talk will give an update at the 3yr mark of my 5yr EPSRC RSE Fellowship, including the work I've supported to date and how we've developed the RSE role from a standing start at QUB.

**Jeremy Cohen:** *STEP-UP: A new regional platform to support Research Technical Professionals*

This short talk will introduce STEP-UP, one of the recently funded EPSRC Strategic Technical Platforms. STEP-UP is a regional platform that promises to offer significant benefits to the RSE community, both within the London region, where the platform is targeted, and in the wider UK and international community. The platform focuses on digital Research Technical Professionals (dRTPs), building on the developments in the software space to extend support to data and computing infrastructure professionals. STEP-UP will support a programme of regional community development, EDI activities, training and three specialist programmes providing secondments, mentoring and multiple cohorts of "Research Technical Champions". Alongside these activities, we will work to share our findings and outputs with the wider technical professional communities as well as looking to support the development of similar programmes and activties around the UK and beyond.

**Chris Cave-Ayland:** *Figuring out what a RSE Technical Lead is*

Recently the RSE team at Imperial adopted a dual leadership model with a separate team and technical lead. This talk will cover early activities explored as part of the role and on-going attempts to define the role of a technical lead in an RSE team tackling a diverse portfolio of projects.

*Interesting! Two of the sub-groups at UCL have a similar leadership structure now.*

**~~Simon Hettrick~~ Lyndsey Ballantyne:** *Hidden REF*

https://hidden-ref.org/
An overview of what the Hidden REF is, what we've been doing and how you can get involved.

**Questions/comments/discussion points:**
-

### Discussions

List discussion topics, discussion participants and summary of outcomes below.

---

### Finance Models and Timesheeting

breakout room 3

#### Discussion Participants
- [name=James]
- [name=Jonathan C (online)]
- [name=Pip]
- [name=Leila]
- [name=Rich]
- [name=Phil (online)]
- [name=Hannah (online)]
- [name=Iain (online)]

#### Discussion Notes
##### Timesheets
- Accuracy v utility of timesheeting
- Set an FTE amount - money is tranferred per month
- Beurucratic exercise? Truth v fiction?
- Three versions of truth - grant, finance, actual (100% cost recovery)
- Total time tracked on project time doesn't always match with what it should be
- Some people like tracking where they spend time, some find it annoying
- UCL use timesheets, having agreed with academics
- time tracking is broad-brush, in half-day/day breakdowns
- indirectly billed time e.g. training, which then gets shared out between projects - requires some manual balancing to ensure one project isn't adversely affected e.g. if lots of training happens in one month of a project time
- how does mandatory training get billed appropriately?

##### Finance
- mix of funding approaches
- bulk of RSE time being directly allocated
- > Our support is costed as an unnamed, directly allocated “Research Software Engineer” at the current blended rate for the team. This formulation is because we operate as a staff pool collaborating on multiple projects across the university, and has been approved by Research Services since 2014; it has also been accepted on many RCUK and other grants since (in line with guidance outlined by UKRI). For the few funders that don't support this, we instead cost as directly incurred at the same spine point. These staff contribute directly to the research aims and goals of a project as collaborating researcher(s), providing a key research role contributing to the intellectual development and direction of the projects.
- naming staff as CoIs to be costed on grant
- encountering lack of appetite for Co-I
- Facility model
- strict calculation of day rate, well understood by funders and HR
- tricky to set up, at least at UCL, but can be good for 'standard' service offerings
- often back-of-envelope estimates for time requirements/allocations
- Subscription model - access to time is bought

##### Delivering software v researching
- research never goes to plan, so you might not get "the thing"
- risk v reward
- delivering early then enables time for training etc
- depends on the funder's rules

##### Summary
- discussed different ways of tracking and reporting time; concensus that we don't want to report at high granularity but there are risks
- discussed ways of costing RSE time; unclear that there is a best way; a view from authority that X is suitable gives some justification to an approach
- ties in with service provider vs academic provider; what are people buying?

##### The UCL email to prospective PIs
> Dear Professor X,
>
> We’re very pleased you’re considering a collaboration with UCL ARC.
>
> The UCL Advanced Research Computing Centre is a hybrid research institute, combining an academic mission with professional practice in scientific computing and digital scholarship. Before committing to new collaborations we would like to make sure we both understand the implications of this for our work together.
>
> We follow norms associated with research cultures. Our primary aim is helping to deliver collaborative team-based digital research to projects across the university.
>
> Alongside you, all projects will have a named ARC lead – a senior research specialist with relevant expertise, tasked to ensure success of our contribution to the work. This forms part of their core contribution to the research – we seek to add these individuals as grant co-Investigators where this will help with outcomes, or alternatively you might prefer we just name staff in grant proposals to benefit from their individual track record and contribute to career development. We propose that Dr Smith is the named research specialist leading this project for ARC.
>
> As a research project, we are aware that objectives may be vague or open-ended, and solutions will need to be co-designed across the project team.
>
> Our expectation is that staff scientists will co-author papers with you and your team, and will from time-to-time lead authorship of computational and data focused papers. New ideas for spin-off work will arise, and staff will follow curiosity, discussing ideas with you, perhaps leading to new funding opportunities. A research software engineer, for example, is more than just a programmer, and their time on collaborative grants will include activities such as publication work, research group meetings, staff personal career development and training, and new grant development contributions. This flexibility ensures they contribute to the success of the project as well as advancing their professional expertise and ARC capabilities to accelerate future project delivery. Work may well continue beyond the funded end date of the grant to complete publications or work on follow-up grants, and in turn, work on your project may well be combined with such leftover work from other previous research collaborations, and on grant authorship for new opportunities. Where funders expect detailed timesheets they will be generated by us on the above basis. More details of our ways of working can be found on our website.
>
> As a hybrid of research department and professional service, it is important that the expertise of our staff scientists meets both your needs and UCL’s standards of academic excellence. We will be looking to PIs to help us with interview panels, for feedback on performance management, and to help us with allocating staff scientists to projects to achieve the optimal solution for your projects and UCL overall. If you have any concerns about the development needs of ARC staff within your research team, please let us know.
>
> From time to time, we may enter into projects following a more service-oriented consultancy delivery model. Research collaborations are our default, so if you would prefer your current project with us to fall into this alternative model, please let us know. We would expect most projects with uncertain or curiosity driven outcomes to not fall within this category. We may not be able to work on a consultancy beyond the allocated research funding, and a commercial consultancy provider may be more suitable for some projects.
>
> Next steps: If this all seems ok, all we need is a quick email that you’re happy to go forward as noted. Or, if you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
>
> Best,
>
> *whichever team lead is writing*
>
> Advanced Research Computing Centre, University College London

---

### Increasing Diversity

breakout room 2, in-person: court yard

#### Discussion Participants
- [name=Martin O] (in-person but happy to join online)
- [name=Tom M]
- [name=Sam Bland] (Online)
- [name=Chris C-A]
- [name=Heather (Online)]
- [name=Lyndsey (online)]
- [name=Samantha Finnigan (in-person)]

#### Discussion Notes
- What people are looking for from discussion
- Increasing diversity in team. What's worked, what hasn't. How to improve beyond sector baseline (and what are the right baselines)
- Increasing diversity on panels / events. How to ensure it's baked in from the start and doesn't feel like a tick box exercise.
- Events are a key place for diversity and representation to have a big impact as they can often be reaching people not already in / at the boundaries of the community
- People with different backgrounds can be more prone to impostor syndrome and either be less likely to put themselves forward / be wary of accepting an invite.
- Need to be careful that people who are different that the average don't get a harder time on panels etc
- Ensure that everyone is comfortable expressing their viewpoint. Getting past imposter syndrome.
- Can we be more structured about enabling all to contribute
- Mentoring / support for preparing talks
- Could extend to job applications - pre -application drop-ins / mentoring or help perparing applications
- Can we provide early / graduated and supported opportunities to step up the "exposure" / scale curve? e.g. local / small first then regional / interest groups or breakout / parallel sessions at larger events
- Women in HPC are doing a special event at ISC. Lightning talks targeted at under-represented folks. Lower stakes in terms of time. Smaller audience to main conference. Presenting to peers / people with similar backgrounds.
- Connect with organisations like Women in HPC, R-Ladies etc to organise these sorts of sessions at other events - both to help make them good experiences and to connect with the people we want to get involved.
- Doing a talk / talking about something for the first time takes a lot of preparation. The limited time for a lightning talk feels like it helps with this. Are there other ways to help with this? e.g. giving a talk someone else has already given / prepared? Giving people opportunities to repeat / scale up a topic they've presented / discussed before.
- How to balance not leaning too heavily on under-represented / minority groups while also ensuring that those of us with sufficient / over-representation are doing more heavy lifting?
- How to fix the pool / pipeline? If we only focus at university we won't get our community to reflect the nation.
- Marker for a future conversation on entry pathways?
- How to balance / target representation for more hidden diversity?

---

### Software Consultancy versus Research Collaboration

main room (both online and in-person)

#### Discussion Participants
- [name=Dave Beavan, in-person]
- [name=Mark Richardson (online)]
- [name=Samantha Finnigan, in-person]
- [name=Leila]
- [name=Chris C-A]
- [name=Phil (online)]
- [name=Matt Williams] (in-person)
- [name=Ilian Todorov] (in-person)
- [name=Jonathan C (online, just dropped a note in below!)]

#### Discussion Notes
- Clarifies what SUCCESS looks like, and what people are being judged on:
- academics are judged on academic contributions, and sofware engineers are judged on software outputs
- We inhabit the space between the two!
- What does it look like when we're dealing with stakeholders?
- Framing perspective: what the RSEs themselves are looking for!
- Being a software engineer working at a Universty vs
- Being a researcher who writes software!
- Perception of the stakeholders
- If you are producing output which is beyond software, you are a researcher too!
- How work is split
- Kinds of projects:
- "It's a postdoc type person with expertise in software"
- ICCS: Not the "Google" 20% - other time devoted to material for the summer school.
- Continuity issues: funding makes RSEs work like postgrads, but expectation is for guaranteed delivery
- It doesn't really exist in that way!
- Issues when people move on from departments, handing-over of projects!
- AUTHORSHIP: RSEs should be included on academic publications if they wrote the software that enabled the research... we've had _some_ success with that...
- PIs will understand "postdoc" type people better and so treating RSEs as postdocs sometimes easier to align with their workflows, onboarding etc.
- Some "RSE" group will have a broad types of jobs, some of which will be very involved on the research front, but others are more "service" like (or at least short-term)
- Authorship, outputs and recognition evidence:
- Is being on papers and taking part in REF important for RSEs? Or just important that the work sustains the RSE group?
- Software publication is very useful as it then folds into future work and publications
- Technical reports of RSE work/outcomes on projects: having time to write these (plan on projects) and publish them on Zenodo
- GitHub repos get DOIs and Researcher is asked to cite them.
- Feeling valued: just using software engineers as a service may not be as rewarding as being involved in the research process (write-up, study design, etc)
- Question of respect, equal partnership!! Transactional, not respectful of skills and experience that early engagement (data management plan, papers)
- Short-term, off-the-books work doesn't result in these outputs. No acknowledgements, no papers. When you start formalising it that makes these happen
- Some academics will not see the RSE as an equal collaborator, but will instead insist on treating them as a drop-in provider.
- Some institutes have a registry that research applications have to go through and there's a checkbox to be done which will trigger the RSE group. This encourages early engagement.
- Speak researcher language: authorship, negotiate terms of engagement! RSEs Co-Is become essential to project.

See also [the UCL email to PIs in the finance breakout above](https://hackmd.io/FmeYe3N0QBCwIZoyhVk3NQ?both#The-UCL-email-to-prospective-PIs).

---

### Finance and Timesheets

- [name=James]
- [name=Jonathan C (online - will start here)]
- [name=Pip]
- [name=Rich]
- [name=Phil (online)]
- [name=Leila (online)]
- [name=Hannah (online)]

- No answers - range of models in use
-

---

## Potential Discussion Topics

- AI RSEs
- How to develop the next generation(s) of RSE Leaders
- [name=Lyndsey (online)]
- [name=Hannah (online)]
- [name=Jonathan is interested in the outcomes but triple-booked here!]
- RSE Mental Health – that of the team and that of the leaders
- Team building and retention
- [name=Pip]
- Increasing diversity
- [name=Martin O] (in-person but happy to join online)
- [name=Tom M]
- [name=Sam Bland] (Online)
- [name=Chris C-A]
- [name=Heather (Online)]
- [name=Lyndsey (online)]
- [name=Samantha Finnigan (in-person)]
- How technical can/should an RSE Leader be?
- Finance models and timesheets (project funding, daily rates, swapping RSEs etc.)
- [name=James]
- [name=Jonathan C (online - will start here)]
- [name=Pip]
- [name=Rich]
- [name=Phil (online)]
- Strategies for RSE career development and aligning experience or skills with banding, promotions processes, etc.
- RSE brokerage and secondments. Is it possible to get past the bureaucracy?
- What methods do we use for reaching RSEs and researchers with training that we offer and how successful have you been?
- How do we "market ourselves to researchers". E.g. through newsletters, a web "storefront" presence, social media, word of mouth, events etc. What is the most successful strategy?
- How to manage RSE training (e.g. funding RSE time/catering, minimising drop-out, offering standard vs custom courses, closed v open materials, videos/hybrid/in-person, term-time/vacation, integration with university infrastructure... )
- [name=Heather (Online)]
- Junior RSEs - pipelines of prof. dev. and maybe internships (+1 on entry pathways / development roles - e.g. placements / internships / apprenticeships)
- Managing the tension between software consultancy and research collaboration as an RSE group
- Terms of engagement with PIs
- [name=Dave Beavan, in-person]
- [name=Jonathan C (online)]
- [name=Mark Richardson (online)]
- [name=Samantha Finnigan, in-person]
- [name=Leila]
- [name=Chris C-A]
- [name=Matt Williams] (in-person)
- [name=Ilian Todorov] (in-person)
- A "SIG" on RSE community building/maintaining
- add your discussion topic here
- add your discussion topic here
- add your discussion topic here
- add your discussion topic here