---
tags: OpenDreamKit, Final Review
---
# OpenDreamKit final review (rehearsal day 2)

This pad is for taking notes during the second day of rehearsal for OpenDreamKit's [Final review](https://opendreamkit.org/meetings/2019-10-30-Luxembourg/).

- [Notes for rehearsal day 1](/9Jadq_P5Rui1xw4O4KQKIg)
- [Notes for the review day](/TpyMyvlzTPmajWX3TtwfHw)

## TODO
- WP presenters: please put your slides in the [web page sources for the review](https://github.com/OpenDreamKit/OpenDreamKit.github.io/tree/master/meetings/2019-10-30-Luxembourg/ProjectReview)
and add links from here to your WP slides
- lightning demos: please add links to your notebook on nbviewer + github
- demos: please edit opendreamkit.org/try/ to point to your repo

- Organize taxis (Steve), starting to leave at 7:30, arriving 8:20
- Printouts (6 copies; three for reviewers, one for PO, one for potential extra person, one for Nicolas)
- Updated agenda ()
- Glossary
-
## About WP presentations

Suggestions from our reviewers:

We need to understand not only the achievements of the project as a whole, but also to know whether this kind of project is viable in the future. Here are three suggestions:

- Stick to high level presentations on work packages, without going too much into the details
- Focus the presentations more on problems encountered
- explain what the future generation of project can learn from our experience

One of the reviewers further suggested:

The project was funded on the idea of creating a collaborative environment. Therefore, the success of the project should be measured against this objective. He therefore suggests to make a special focus on:
- How to evaluate Jupyter Notebooks as system by which one can collaborate internally
- Same question for external collaboration

## Mockup Agenda

Today, we will try to follow the agenda of the review day, starting from the second item.

- 9:00: welcome by the PO
- 9:05: around the table
- 9:10: What's new on opendreamkit.org Nicolas M. Thiéry
- 9:20: Story: [Balthazar's use case](https://mybinder.org/v2/gh/OpenDreamKit/demo-semigroup-representation-theory/master?filepath=demo.ipynb) Nicolas M. Thiéry
(TODO: includes live collaboration)
- 9:45: WP4
- first part of talk (Min), roughly 20 min
- lightning demo teasers + stories (integrated as pdf into Min's talk, 1-2 slides each), roughly 5-10 min
speakers should be up with Min from the beginning so that the transitions are smooth
- Demo teaser: 3D visualization in Jupyter (Marcin, Min), Micromagnetics (Maryian)
- Demo teaser: Application of Jupyter to enterprise training (Olivier)
- Demo teaser: A VRE using Jupyter and GAP (Alex): [[slides]](https://github.com/OpenDreamKit/OpenDreamKit.github.io/blob/master/meetings/2019-10-30-Luxembourg/ProjectReview/WP4_lightning_talk-Jupyter_and_GAP.pdf)
- MAYBE: Story on Publishing computational logbook (Luca)
- second part of talk (Min): future of Jupyter + questions, roughly 10 min
- 10:30: Coffee break
- 10:50: WP5: 30 minutes (including 2-3 lightning demos) + questions
- 11:30: parallel demos (everybody but reviewers and presenters leave the room)
- Alex: GAP
- Olivier: Logilab teaching
- Marcin: 3D
- Marian: Micromagnetics
- Min: nbdime, collaborative notebooks, more?
- Steve: GAP HPC
- David: Singular HPC
- 12:00: lunch
- 12:45: WP1: (Izabela + Nicolas), only site leaders are needed
- 13:30: WP3: 20 min talk + questions (Luca)
- 14:00: WP6: 20 min talk + frontal demo + questions (Michael)
- 14:40: Coffee break
- 15:00: WP2: 20 min talk + questions + slack (Viviane + Erik)
- 15:30: Wrapup (Nicolas) + discussion with reviewers
- 16:00: [Group Picture](https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPyb--jxWiMfMlaur-k0NSkplEM-Br1_Skm8dVmVak8Xk8GeDI1hYToYgxIJ38PNw?key=Mnlma0NyT0pPTVJhdFVhLXppU1BQSVppalY1OHBB)

Every work package leader
- coordinates which people are on stage to during the presentation (e.g., to take questions)
- at the beginning of their talk, asks everybody else who was involved to stand up

---
Last year's schedule: see https://opendreamkit.org/meetings/2018-10-28-Luxembourg/ProjectReview/

# Talking Points for the Review

Let's coordinate a few simple, concise, quote-worthy messages that we can repeat in
- communications with reviewers and PO
- our presentations
- the wrap-up discussion
We should focus on messages that the reviewers and PO can remember and report up the chain.

Talking points:

- Open Source Software must be recognized as a critical e-infrastructure category for the EU.
(Contrary to others, Open Source Software is decentralized and less tangible and therefore often overlooked.)

- Funding for Research Software Engineers is essential for scientific e-infrastructures.
(Contrary to funding for PhD students and senior researchers, RSEs are often overlooked.)

- OpenDreamKit-like VREs have the potential to massively transform how mathematical sciences are researched, taught, and applied.

- FAIR research data management will play a huge role in the future - it is particularly challenging for the mathematical sciences.
(Contrary to other sciences, math data is more complex and requires research software to manage.)

# Notes about presentations

Include timing information, etc ...

### Talk: "What's new in ODK"
- Start with more general considerations, introducing the entire meeting
- before diving right into the website and use case videos
- Tell the story about the comics
### Story Baltazar (15min)
- [x] motivation for implementing the mod rep algorithm ? (besides beauty)
- [x] slide 3.4 capitalize paseshnick
- [x] Don't say/write "in a single system", use "in a single (research) environment" instead
- [x] too much maths in the intro
- [ ] pics of Balthazar
- [x] too many "and there is more" -> try to compact it into fewer
- [x] add *VRE*, *toolkit*, *ODK* keywords everywhere
- [x] add colors esp in the first slides

### WP4
- Call for WP4 demoers
- Make WP4 people stand up
- slide 4: Don't read the whole text
- "this project got the ACM award": project is ambiguous; use "The Jupyter project"
- slide 7: practice what you want to say here
- slide 8: add "..." to figure to indicate there are many kernels, not just 3
- slide 10: in/with distinction is good but was not clearly explained - give a few examples for each
- slide 13, 14, 15: mention that you have demos on these
- maybe run or tease the demos inside the talk
- slide 17: say more or skip entirely
- maybe merge slide 18+19
- slide 22: involved in jupyter.mathhub.info also @kohlhase @florian-rabe
- slide about deployments: write KPI and give a number

- after demos: mention/show a shiny VRE demo as a transition to discussion on future
- slide 30: science and maths -> science, technology, engineering, maths (STEM)

- Future: briefly describe the bossee proposal (show the WP picture + consortium), how everybody wanted to be part of it, why we thought we had a good story and were disapointed this did not fly; asking for advice;

### VRE Gap perspective Demo

- intro: Min's talk mentioned GAP as one of the kernels, that lets you transition easily
- Add a screenshot of using GAP before: terminal + XGAP
- Mention / show that all the pictures are **computed** by GAP

## WP5 presentation

- Capitalize HPMC
- "mathematical computing" should perhaps include **R** and **C**
- "all digits matter":
- Most of the time, all digits matters
- There is more than digits / many objects are not just digits

- Everything reduce to linear algebra; this quote may bring confusion; there are other key building blocks (arithmetic, combinatorics, ...) that were worked on during ODK.

- Comment about "subcubic" being considered forever as impossible in the HPC community for huge clusters, and things changing?

- Slide 4: "our **toolkit** is made of systems and components"
- Slide 9 "arithmetic" spelling
- pronunciation of "promising"
- "16 papers" -- actually published in refereed journals? Say so if so.

### Steve's demo: Meataxe 64
- mention that the parallel demo session will be right after your teasers
- zoom in the browser to increase font
- display the order of the Monster group in bold
- Should Steve be presenting the GAP-HPC slides just before his demo?
- provide screenshots of the demo for inclusion in Clément's PDF

### Daniel's demo:
- "back to the 80's way of doing things"
- you can speak louder
- use a lighter theme for Jupyter (white background for better readability)
- the before-after contrast would be nicer if you ran Singular in a shell instead of browser

###Lessons Learnt:
- Premature focus ... This is not a general statement, but something about one of the actions (linear alge); specify which.

## WP6 presentation
Start: 12:06
- add slide numbers
- generally feels a bit unrehearsed

### History slides
- MitM picture: put actual system names instead A, B, C, ...
- during summary mention the words "documents" and "computation" already, which then occur in the tetrapod
- first tetrapod picture: Organization -> MitM, Tabulation -> Data
- "I'm not gonna talk about that - ask John" sounds a bit dismissive
Maybe: "John is the expert and will happily tell you more" ? (Agreed -- JC)
- Mention tetrapod reachout events at CICM?

### Isabelle library:
- specify task number
- The used ressources are not that impressive; mention them?
rephrase "used resources" -> "run time"
- Impact?
- L4 is unix but not linux

### FAIR slide:
- arrow before "Questions" in wrong place
- mention "lazy data"?

### Nutshell slide
- "your data" -> "your dataset"

### State of Play slide
- "The DB researchers are very interested DB aspects"
*in the* missing
- It's not convincing that MathHub Data wouldn't host all small groups
- mention more on Future
- tease the demo here

### Persistent Memoization slide
- not completely different, both are about locaL/short-term resp. global/long-term storage of data
- I found this slide quite confusing (JC)

- "Python for us means Sage" -> "our main use case is Sage"

### Lessons Learnt
- "which my colleagues from WP5 hate" sounds bad
- other difficulty: using MitM currently adds a large dependency (MMT, ...)
- "high road" sounds dismissive of our other VREs; maybe emphasize the envisioned advantages of the approach and why they are hard to accomplish
can say that WP6 had a stronger focus on research/exploration, when other WP had a stronger focus on delivering production ready solutions

### Conclusion
- "two approaches/attempts" -> "two points in a spectrum of which methods to use"
emphasize methods are complementare, not competing
- It's a lot of work and it's a long road to production ready and wide adoptioon
- make possible -> made possible

## WP2

Start: 15:16-43 + 3 minutes break

Comics: larger picture

There is some duplication about comics and videos with Nicolas intro. Synchronize and decide.

quote on impostor syndrome: put on the slide who said that (It currently looks like you said it.)
same with quotes on later slides

Speaking of Sage+GAP training in Nigeria, remember to mention Software Carpentry training preceding it

24 minutes total; about 20 minutes real time; great. With a bit of language polishing this can probably be brought down to 18-19 minutes for a bit of extra margin.

## WP 3

Started 16:05

- [x] Generally speaking could be more synthetic on KPI's

- [ ] Opening slide: a real researcher would never ask for a VRE as such!

- [x] 9.2 say how many/which components were packaged

- [x] 11.1: showcase 'part of' not 'all of ' the work of WP5
D3.11 is more related to WP5 contributions delivered at M36 (D5.12) and not really on those presented today.
Emphasize the pb of composing parallel libs into a high level vre.

- [x] 13.? Fix: Code qualty

- [ ] Future: what are the main challenges? E.g. on keeping packaging efforts; how better is the situation now? Incremental enough?

- [x]13.2: 80000 -> 80k

- [x] 14.1 add "impossible without funding for RSEs"
- move "This would have been" up so that it applies to all 3 items

- [ ] Lessons learned: those are not really lessons we learned; we knew about it.

- [x] "We need to **be** constantly.."