| 16 | | Information relating to the MRC review of the application submitted by KL and M.Noro was discussed. The principal issue, that the UKRI Infrastructure Fund office is unwilling to support the Bridging Period beyond May25 was noted. No formal communication from UKRI had been received. |
| 17 | | |
| 18 | | An extended discussion of the collaboration's response to the possible curtailment of the bridging period ensued. We noted that, since we are now in Nov25, the bridging period is already underway and that therefore, formally, the grant extensions would have to be clawed back, an unprecedented step for a funding agency to take. The repetitional damage from such an outcome would be substantial. The weaknesses of the IF as presently conceived in terms of supporting best practice in the project management of long-term projects were discussed. Issues to do with peer review and oversight of IF project were noted. |
| 19 | | |
| 20 | | Several steps had been taken to try and address the issue. Meetings had taken place between LhARA collaboration management and senior management in STFC. Contacts had been made with the management in some partner organisations with a view to seeking advice and laying the ground work for letters of support. International colleagues in France, Spain and Germany have been contact as has our lead industrial partner. Through R.Amos, contacts have been/will be made with UK and international professional bodies to solicit letters of support in the programme. |
| 21 | | |
| 22 | | C.Pugh has initiate the collation of a benefits map and a documentation of contributions in kind, during the Preliminary Activity and projected for the bridging period. This information will be used in a letter to be sent on behalf of the EB by AG and KL. The goal is to have the letter ready by the end of the week. |
| 23 | | |
| 24 | | The case was made that the delivery of PoPLaR must be prioritised in any compromise scenario as the recovery of the bridging resource was negotiated. There was unanimous agreement. |
| 25 | | |
| 26 | | The need to inform the collaboration was discussed. It was agreed that KL would draft an email to be sent on behalf of the EB to the collaboration outlining the situation and the steps that are being taken to try to address them. The email would announce a meeting at 14:00 on Friday 15Nov24 online to discuss the situation and to review the collaboration's response. |
| 27 | | |
| 28 | | 3. //LhARA/ITRF BP1 bridging project plan: // CP, CW \\ |
| 29 | | Bridging-period document is essentially complete. It needs an overall Gantt chart and some revisions to the milestone definitions. |
| 30 | | |
| 31 | | Moving forward with the bridging activity, CW is encouraging the WPs to bring the various tasks together regularly (monthly) to address overlap/interface issues and to foster better mutual understanding. |
| 32 | | |
| 33 | | Preparation of PoPLaR going well. Supply issues and delays in the PMQ delivery are conspiring to push back the start of experimentation. Presently seems likely that the beam-time for biology will need to be pushed back to March. JPar emphasised that to get the data we need will require a series of experiments rather than a single beam time. This was noted. |
| | 16 | 3. //LhARA/ITRF BP1 bridging project plan document: // CP, CW, KL \\ |
