\documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article} %\usepackage{times,mathptm} \newcommand{\action}[1]{\marginpar{\flushleft {\bf Action}: #1}} %\documentstyle[a4,11pt]{article} \headheight 0mm % No header text \headsep 0mm % No distance between header and body of text %\parindent 0mm % No paragraph indentation %\parskip 5mm % Size of gap between paragraph \addtolength{\textheight}{1.5in} \textwidth 15.0cm \oddsidemargin 0.0cm \evensidemargin 0.0cm \begin{document} \begin{center} \large\bf MINUTES OF THE WORKING GROUP 1 \\MEETING OF CCP4 \\ \large\bf HELD AT CHESTER ON JANUARY 5, 1996 \end{center}\vspace{5ex} \noindent{\it Present:} \noindent \begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\hspace*{2em}}l} \\ Neil Isaacs (Chairman) & Glasgow University \\ Eleanor Dodson & York University\\ Guy Dodson & York University\\ Phil Evans & MRC, Cambridge \\ John Helliwell & Manchester University \\ Peter Lindley & Daresbury Laboratory \\ David Moss & Birkbeck College\\ Hilary Muirhead & Bristol University \\ David Rice & Sheffield University \\ Lindsay Sawyer & Edinburgh University \\ Tony North & Leeds University \\ David Stuart & Oxford University \\ Jennifer Littlechild &Exeter University \\ Christine Cardin & Reading University \\ Colin Reynolds & Liverpool John Moores University \\ Keith Wilson & York (EU rep.) \\ Alan Wonacott (industrial rep.) & Glaxo \\ Debbie Harding &BBSRC \\ Susan Bailey (secretary) & Daresbury Laboratory \end{tabular}\vspace{2ex} \noindent{\it Apologies:\/} Garry Taylor, Peter Artymiuk, Brian Sutton. \section{Minutes of the previous meeting } The minutes of the previous meeting were accepted. \section{Matters arising from the minutes} \begin{itemize} \item [\S2.] Link established from CCP4 WWW page to Database of European Crystallographers. \item [\S5.] Grant Renewal. The CCP4 grant has been renewed. The proposal was well rated and received excellent referees reports. \end{itemize} \section{Financial report } The secretary presented the income and expenditure details for the 95/96 year (see enclosed information). The entry for salaries covers the temporary and casual staff employed out of CCP4 income. Eleanor wanted to know the difference between temporary and casual. Casual staff can be employed on a contract for up to a year, the position is not advertised and the employee is not interviewed. Temporary staff are on fixed term contracts which may be longer than a year (2 years for CCP4 staff), the position has been advertised and interviews held. Peter urged CCP4 to consider more temporary appointments to use the CCP4 income. Appointments need not be at Daresbury. David R. pointed out that we do seem to be spending most of our income this year as the carry-over is not increasing that much. \section{Manpower at Daresbury } Dave Love has recently left CCP4 and the CCP4 programmer position will shortly be advertised internally. Neil said that Dave Love had demonstrated the need for a good computer scientist in the position of the CCP4 Programmer, and the advert was aimed at obtaining these skills. Neil thanked Peter for helping to push this through at Daresbury. Eleanor raised the question of job satisfaction for a computer scientist, but it was pointed out that we are giving scope for the person to spend up to 20\% of their time on a development project relevant to CCP4. Adam Ralph and Martyn Winn are both on 2 year fixed term contracts. Adam's position will finish in June '96, but Martyn only started in October '95. It was agreed that Adam would need to have his contract renewed or be replaced. Neil suggested that CCP4 employ an executive director. We should be prepared to pay a substantial salary (\pounds 50K) to recruit a person who could push CCP4 toward a more professional approach. The person would need a computer science background and would be the line manager for the Daresbury staff and would develop the PR and industrial sales aspects of CCP4. John welcomed the idea but questioned whether the CCP4 income was sufficient to cover this. Neil said that the appointment would be on a fixed term renewable basis. Neil asked Peter whether the person could be accomodated at Daresbury. Peter replied that CCLRC and BBSRC are keen to see CCP4 stay at DL and that space would be found. There was some discussion of the type of person and skills required and their role. It was agreed that this idea should be persued, but perhaps at a slightly lower salary. Neil said that the executive committee would consider this during the next year. Guy suggested a shorter timescale. \section{Reorganisation of Committees} Neil drew the groups attention to the discussion document which had been circulated. The document was the result of discussions between Neil, David R., Peter, Eleanor, Phil and Debbie. Neil outlined the proposed role of the working groups and the establishment of an executive committee. John noted that this sounded like an interim arrangement with respect to the earlier proposal for an executive director. John also drew the groups attention to the possible financial liabilities of the members of an executive committee, but this was thought not to be a problem due to the involvment of DL and BBSRC. Neil thought this might be a point for the executive committee to discuss. Tony proposed that the recommendations in the discussion document be accepted. This was seconded and agreed. Guy asked how the two representatives should be elected. Neil said they should be members of WG1 and chosen by WG1. Tony asked who the members of WG1 are. It was agreed they are all the heads of the UK protein crystallography laboratories. It was decided that as not all possible members had been invited to the current meeting there should be a postal ballot for the two representatives to the executive committee. At the same time the secretary should circulate a list of all WG1 members, and if anyone felt someone had been missed the secretary should be notified. Before nominations to the executive committee, Neil noted that David Rice had resigned as WG2 chairman and thanked him for the tremendous amount of work he had put in over a long period. Phil Evans had been the only person nominated to be the new WG2 chairman and he had accepted the position.\\ ACTION: Sue\\ There were nominations for the executive committee. John, Keith, Eleanor, Lindsay and David R. were all nominated, but John and David R. declined the nominations. It was agreed that the nominations for Keith, Eleanor and Lindsay should be circulated to WG1 members and a postal vote held for the two positions.\\ ACTION: Sue\\ The appendix describes the membership of the new executive committee and outlines the functions of this committee and of the Working Groups. The duties of the Secretary are also defined. Public relations. Neil suggested that CCP4 should have a stand in the industrial exhibitions at the IUCr meeting in Seattle with all the Daresbury CCP4 staff at the meeting to represent CCP4. Peter asked whether we would have to pay for such a stand. Neil thought not, but this would have to be determined. \section{Commercialisation of Software} \begin{enumerate} \item{}Geographical validity of licence. A letter had been received from Richard Pauptit at Zeneca, asking if Zeneca US could pay a reduced licence fee as there were two Zeneca sites, and only one person using the suite in the US. After some discussion it was agreed that companies with more than one group on different sites should be charged the full amount for each site unless they made a case for a reduction, and then the second site would be given a 40\% reduction and charged \pounds 3000, but with no tape distribution to the second site. The secretary should write to Richard and explain the position.\\ ACTION: Sue \item{}Establishment of Mirror site. Eleanor explained that Phil Bourne at San Diego would be happy to be responsible for distributing the CCP4 suite as a mirror site. This would greatly ease the pressure on the ftp site at Daresbury and improve access for American users. Mirroring software is available to ensure that the mirror site is automatically updated. Eleanor also requested that a mirror site be set up in India, as the groups in India were having difficulty accessing the Daresbury site. There was some discussion of cost implications, but as there was no request for support from San Diego or India, it was agreed that mirror sites be set up.\\ ACTION: Daresbury staff to implement, Eleanor to check out possible Indian sites. \end{enumerate} \section{Next Study Weekend} It was agreed that it should be held on the 3-4 January. Keith explained the position of renewal of the EU grant, to fund young European scientists. The application had be turned down, because the meetings had too many participants, were too short and that they were a series of annual conferences. The latter seemed to be the main reason. Keith described subsequent phone calls, and the procedure that CCP4 should follow to obtain funds. Keith volunteered to persevere with this if WG1 agreed. There was general agreement.\\ ACTION: Keith\\ It was noted that the DL conference office would probably make charges for organising future study weekends. The scale of charges has not been decided but Peter said they would not be excessive. Choice of venue. It was agreed that the study weekend should be kept as an open meeting so that everyone who wants to can attend. This implies moving to a larger venue. A letter had previously been circulated to all WG1 members asking them to look into possibilities at their University. A number of replies had been received and a number of members had brought details with them. Information was available for York, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Exeter. Phil suggested York University, but Peter said that there was some merit to keeping the meeting in the North West, for example Liverpool. After some discussion it was agreed that all members interested in hosting the meeting send details of facilities and prices to Neil Isaacs within the next week and Neil would make an executive decision. It was important to decide quickly so that arrangements could be made for 1997. The site should accomodate at least 450 participants. Ideally, this should be a single site with all participants staying on suite. \\ ACTION: Neil \\ The chairman asked for suggestions for topics. Various ideas were discussed and Keith's suggestion of `Non-standard methods of phasing' was accepted. \section{CCP4 Workshop} Phil said that Cambridge would be running a data collection workshop at Cambridge, which has been paid for by EMBO in the past. Keith had promised some EU funds for the next meeting but could CCP4 pay for the subsistence costs of a week in Cambridge for 6-7 British students, perhaps totalling \pounds1-2K. This was agreed. \section{Any other business} Neil announced that he intended to offer his resignation as chairman at the next WG1 meeting. \section{Venue and date of the next meeting} The next meeting will be on the first morning of the next study weekend, in the same place as that meeting.\\ \noindent --- Sue Bailey (secretary)\\ 17-1-96 \newpage \section*{Appendix} Executive Committee of WG1 -------------------------- At the meeting of Working Group 1 at Chester on January 5th, 1996 the following proposals were agreed: 1. That an executive committee of WG1 be established. This committee will have powers to make decisions quickly and will report annually to WG1. It will meet at least twice yearly and at any other times as required (although it will be possible to make decisions following consultations by phone, Fax, email or mail). The functions of this committee will be: a) To decide on financial matters as required b) To prepare and submit grant applications c) To interact with and respond to approaches from outside organisations d) To appoint interviewing committees for new staff as required. e) To liaise with CCLRC and BBSRC. The membership of this committee is: Chair of WG1 Neil Isaacs Chair of WG2 Phil Evans Secretary of CCP4 Sue Bailey Two elected representatives Lindsey Sawyer Eleanor Dodson BBSRC representative Debbie Harding 2. Decisions arising from WG2 discussions are the responsibility of the Chair of WG2 and the Secretary, who together will set priorities. Their implementation will be the responsibility of the secretary. 3. The duties of the Secretary are to be: a) Administration of CCP4 within the format described above b) On-site management of CCP4 staff at Daresbury c) Liaising with Industrial users d) Managing any Public Relations matters The Secretary will report to the Chair WG2 on matters regarding programming and to Chair WG1 on all other matters. 4. There will be regular (at least six monthly) meetings of WG1 and WG2 Chairs with the CCP4 Daresbury Laboratory staff. 5. The Chair positions should be held for periods of three years, at the conclusion of which the incumbents should retire or submit themselves for re-election to the position for a further three year period. The three year periods of both Working Group Chairs should not be coincidental and neither should overlap directly with a grant period. The term of office of the elected members of the committee was not decided at the WG1 meeting. It is suggested that the term of office is normally 3 years but that there should be no change in years when the CCP4 grant needs renewing. To ensure some continuity it is suggested that the term of office of one elected member is until March 1997, and the other until March 1999. \end{enumerate} \end{document}