1. User Forum – Slides for Discussion Jamie.Shiers@cern.ch

2. Recommendations Look for merging with other user forum activities and utilizing existing work Include wider set of ”e-infrastructure acronyms” and try to make the interface less confusing to users Promote open approach and clear selection criteria –Choices and pilots based on clear criteria, not based on ”since it happens to be there”. Some pilots have a tendency to become permanent. –Example from datacenter selection criteria: energy efficiency, environmental sustainability, running costs 2

3. Potential for conflicts What is the relation between this forum and others? –Need to build on existing initiatives, not ”yet an another policy group” Where is the point when collaboration potential converts to harmful politics? –For example ”data intensive HPC” is today addressed also by PRACE Networked models (”ecosystem”) instead of monoliths allows better inclusion or people Clear and open criteria for choices –Examples: who will provide each service and how those decisions are made etc. 3

4. principle problems researchers want useful services but not interested in lengthy discussions researchers will take interesting solutions or build them infrastructure building & giving service requires altruistic people – do we have them in Europe? Can we only rely on services for money? infrastructure and tool building requires time to become mature and accepted – there is a time without reliable success indicators different models of user engagement user advisory boards – often alibi function user forums – interesting but difficult to turn into action conferences – often platforms to present own work active working groups – very promising but does not scale running project no dynamic adaptation results not usable running project just collection of wishes lack plan for action DataOne CLARIN EUDAT...

5. questions to this forum what is the aim of the forum – supporting, blocking, commenting, recommending, claqueuring, etc.? how to make sure we get the people we are looking for? is it a neutral place or is there a hidden agenda? whom do we trust – who is in the driving seat (researchers, IT folks, etc.)? how do we organize the forum – monolithically? do we understand that there is no golden way of user engagement – partly success depends on trusted persons? (famous Henry Thompson and XML) same issues being addressed by RDA (and others such as IETF, W3C, etc.)

7. GOALS, OUTCOMES & METRICS 7

8. Prioritising and publishing issues facing the scientific communities in the areas of infrastructures; Maintaining a database of contact information; Providing an estimation of the impact of the e‐infrastructures on the research communities; Providing information on the potential for a service in terms of market size and likely adoption; Organising representative input from the scientific communities through workshops and polls; Participating in strategic discussions with e‐infrastructure providers and projects; Participating and providing input on strategic directions from the scientific community for the e-IRG, European Commission and national funding agencies. 8

9. Some Specific Proposals… Maintaining a list of available services Publishing a regular (annual?) “Compendium” – IMHO this is different from existing compendia in that input must come directly from the users Organising detailed technical workshops Holding an inter-disciplinary “conference” – Differentiated by ratio of talks / discussions as well as cross-disciplinary nature… 9

10. Ramp-up It will need at least one year to ramp-up and this will require extensive discussions at numerous existing meetings Many people have already – and independently – expressed the need We must “tap” that energy and deliver something the users see as useful 10

11. HORIZON 2020 WORK PROGRAMME INFRASUPP 7 in particular

12. To optimise e-infrastructures investments in Europe it is essential to coordinate European, national and/or regional policies and programmes for e-infrastructures, in order to develop complementarities, and promote cooperation between e-infrastructures and activities implementing other Union policies (such as regional, cohesion, industrial, health, employment, or development policy). To promote sound policy development it is essential to ensure stakeholder consultation, monitor take-up and assess the impact of past actions. To promote innovation it is necessary to identify it and spin it out from projects. The cooperation of European e-infrastructures with their non-European counterparts also requires facilitation, to ensure their global interoperability and reach. 12

13. 1.Dissemination of information on the e-infrastructure programme and of project results, including coordination among projects; 2.Stakeholder initiatives, including a user forum to provide orientations for e-infrastructure service interoperability and integration; 3.Policy coordination with the major national and European policy makers, including the collection of information needed for policy making e.g. through consultation actions and surveys as well as the wider use of e- infrastructures for public services and society; 4.Support to monitoring results and assessing impact of the Horizon 2020 e-infrastructure activities, including through metrics and indicators; 5.Monitor and analyse the take-up of digital science and e-infrastructures by researchers and possible other users, such as citizens and the education sector, per country, region and research domain or community; 6.Support to technology transfer from the e-infrastructures projects to the market; 7.Support to cooperation with developing countries and regions to promote connectivity, global e-infrastructure services, identification of use cases and promising applications of particular interest for developing regions. One or several projects? Which points? Partners? Budget? 13

14. Expected impact: A consistent and dynamic European policy for research infrastructures is developed and is coordinated EU-wide. Support actions provide solid ground for future choices and help in decision making and deployment of e-infrastructures. Impact and results analysis is available in real time and can inform policy choices. Novel technology and services with market potential are identified and spun off to the market. Support measures for international cooperation address specific issues regarding reciprocal use, openness or co-financing of e-infrastructures, as well as ensure Europe's persistent presence and influence in the global e-infrastructure. 14

15. Timeline December 11 th – first H2020 calls open March 26 – 28 – RDA – 3 [ April 15 th – 1 st deadline for submission ] May 19 – 23: “User Fora” [ mid-July – mid/end August: “closed” ] September 2 nd : 2 nd deadline for submission September 22 – 24: RDA – 4 15

16. Timeline – 2 Assuming successful funding under INFRASUPP-7- 2014, could plan first “supported” UF mind-2015 Clarify relation to other “UFs” Clarify goals, e.g. “XLDB-style” information exchange? How can we benefit from existing events in 2014? How can we reach “end users” or their “representative representatives”? 16

17. Trust in all levels Trust between RI and e-infra Trust between different Ris Trust between different e-infrastructure initiatives User-driven services, requirement for synergy 17 EVERY RI NEEDS TO DEAL WITH e-INFRASTRUCTURE

18. Prioritising and publishing issues facing the scientific communities in the areas of infrastructures; Maintaining a database of contact information; Providing an estimation of the impact of the e‐infrastructures on the research communities; Providing information on the potential for a service in terms of market size and likely adoption; Organising representative input from the scientific communities through workshops and polls; Participating in strategic discussions with e‐infrastructure providers and projects; Participating and providing input on strategic directions from the scientific community for the e-IRG, European Commission and national funding agencies. 18