Page Comparison

...

\uD83D\uDC65 Participants

• Matt Thompson

...

• Lily Wang

• Matt Thompson

• Jeffrey Wagner

\uD83D\uDDE3 Discussion topics

...

JW + DMlink

• Next steps:

  • Reschedule and use john.chodera@choderalab.org to make sure JC gets the invite

    • JC will share his calendar for recurring availability

  • Draft up a pre-EP for JC to review

    • MT – This is basically the comment I just put on the issue

    • https://github.com/openforcefield/standards/issues/

51MT

• • • 51#issuecomment-1659340028

    • JC will review this tonight

  • Draft up a full EP

    • JW – I’d be fine with shorter EPs
      

Item	Presenter	Notes	15-30 minutes	Committee tempo/ procedures	Notes
MT – vdW methods and periodicity: Github link macro link https://github.com/openforcefield/standards/issues/51 extended false	MT – The straightforward solution is to do something like what we’d done with electrostatics. and split periodic and nonperiodic potentials. JW – What would the vdW keywords change to? MT – potential would stay, method would split into periodic_method and nonperiodic_method This should make us ready to switch to LJPME when the day comes. (MT taking notes in a comment on that issue) JW – MT – I’m JW – Is there a case where users will get totally stopped in trying to do something like a vacuum simulation in AMBER by specifying this? … (General) – If that happens, there will probably be a workaround that experts would use anyway. So we should go ahead and draft Pre-EP summary comment: Github link macro link https://github.com/openforcefield/standards/issues/51#issuecomment-1659340028
Committee composition?	DM + LW – Change rules to majority? JW – Have reviewer “pools” - like “technical” and “scientific”, requiring approvals from both? MT – I’d like to make sure that we have organizational capacity to get changes through to the finish line. I think it’s too easy to let things lose momentum on GitHub. I like the idea of monthly meetings, which are cancelled ahead of time if there’s no agenda. DM – Yeah, we’d need JC for that discussion.
JW/DM – Committee tempo/ procedures	Recap issues discussed previously in /wiki/spaces/MEET/pages/2590736396 Brief summary: Current process owned too much by infrastructure team, including: (possibly) Define spec change Review change, discuss spec change, answer questions, defend spec change, carefully consider all aspects Get all stakeholders to agree/iterate to convergence Implement Creates perverse/adverse incentives: Requires a huge amount of work to define the work that needs to be done. Possible new procedure: The infrastructure team is only involved in review, final approval, and implementation; there needs to be another driver Driver has the right to limit scope, e.g. “This is a good thing to consider but falls outside scope of current proposal; suggester can create new proposal and be driver on that” Relevant committee commits to meet at some predictable frequency to make synchronous decisions Meet monthly on recurring schedule and change voting? Or meet one-off each month? Batching small changes so a variety go into a spec update e.g. Q4-2023 branch which will have several different EPs merged into it that will eventually go into next point release of section spec, e.g. 0.5, when quarter’s changes wrap up. Proposed goal: Release once a quarter, but changes are approved and can be implemented once EPs merged. Suggested monthly meeting Should we change committee composition and/or requirements to make a recurring meeting? Or schedule one-off each month?
	10 minutes	vdW methods and periodicity:
Github link macro

✅ Action items

⤴ Decisions

...