High Resolution Numerical Weather Prediction Project
Website of the ALADIN Consortium
1st Meeting of the MoU4 redaction committee, Krakow, Friday 16 April
Article published on 20 April 2010
last modification on 11 January 2011

by Patricia

1st Meeting of the MoU4 redaction committee, Krakow, Friday 16 April, 12:00 - 13:30

Presents for the redaction committee [1] : Dijana Klaric, Jean-François Geleyn, Claude Fischer, Piet Termonia

  • General guidelines for the redaction of the MoU4 :
    • simplify the MoU and make it shorter, governance oriented, and not dealing with scientific choices and strategy.
    • action: Jean-François will send us a "colored" version of the MoU, underlining what could/should be suppressed/modified/... (mail sent yesterday by Jean-François)
    • no deliverables in the MoU but we can put commitments to have a strategic plan as reference (with mention of the possibility of a mid-term updating).
  • Links with HIRLAM/convergence :
    • Task force (a non permanent, strong committee, transversal HARMONIE) has been proposed during HIRLAM review. It could be a nice first step to introduce the convergence between ALADIN and HIRLAM governances. We would need the ToR for the task force leader (either from ALADIN or HIRLAM)
    • The ALADIN/HIRLAM agreement is an annex to the MoU : it is announced in a small paragraph in the MoU. Action : Piet will review this paragraph and propose a new version for next HAC.
  • LTM and CSSI
    • LTMs don’t have enough power : we need to increase both rights and duties of LTMs in the ToR of LTM (the limit is the national range).
    • We need a bridge between research and operation/system.
    • We need some coordination of LTMs, outside the ACNA position.
  • Money
    • HIRLAM and LACE have a GNP based contribution. The Istanbul ALADIN GA decided to keep the flat-rate system with a ceiling written in the MoU, valid for 5 years, but, in special circumstances, the GA might vote to override it.
    • The flat-rate contribution is the same for all partners; the in-kind and the voluntary contributions are supposed to introduce an implicit GNP weighting. We should reformulate the in-kind and voluntary contributions paragraph in the next MoU (these contributions are difficult to monitor, specially for the commitments).
    • What value for the flat-rate ceiling in the MoU ? what if some country doesn’t pay ?
    • Long term question for PAC (Cornel’s action, see Claude separated email): how will we evolve from the current flat-rate+voluntary+in-kind system towards a GNP based contribution ? This won’t be on the MoU4.
  • Bureau
    • If we keep a Bureau, we should define its ToR.
  • LBCs from ARPEGE
    • No mention to ARPEGE LBCs since MoU2 (it was only in MoU1). Not worth adding in MoU4.
  • Licence and ECMWF agreement
    • action Claude & Pat -> find some law experts in MF to deal with licence and ECMWF agreement
    • ECMWF won’t sign anything with ALADIN (ALADIN has no legal body to sign with) but with MF
  • Code and maintenance issue
    • This point is technical but we should keep it in the MoU in a short preamble (common depository, know-how and common maintenance work), insisting on a strong commitment on the intentions but not much details on the way
    • action for everybody: think about other points to add to the preamble

Next meeting by teleconference on Monday 26 April.