**Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering**

**Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes**

**April 24, 2006**

## [Opening Remarks]{.underline}

Dr. Peter Freeman, Assistant Director for CISE, and Dr. Alfred Aho,
Chair of the CISE Advisory Committee (CISE AC), called the meeting to
order at 8:10 a.m. Dr. Aho welcomed everyone and the group made
introductions. (Attendees are listed in Appendix I.) Dr. Aho reported
that the brainstorming session on the Global Environment for Networking
Innovations (GENI) held on April 23^rd^, prior to the meeting, was very
productive.

The CISE AC approved the October 20-21, 2005 meeting minutes.

## [NSF and CISE Update]{.underline}

Dr. Freeman thanked the CISE AC members for their important contribution
to NSF and CISE.

Dr. Freeman addressed the following issues:

-   He reviewed the April 13, 2006 update memo (Appendix II) and
    introduced new CISE AC members and several CISE staff. He noted that
    Dr. Deborah Crawford had returned to CISE from her temporary duty in
    the NSF Office of Cyberinfrastructure (OCI). Dr. Dan Atkins is the
    new Director of OCI.

-   He described two recent awards received by computer scientists: the
    Alan T. Waterman Award received by Professor Emmanuel Candes
    (California Institute of technology) and the Vannevar Bush Award
    received by Professor Raj Reddy (Carnegie Mellon University).

-   He noted that the proposed NSF budget for FY 2007 describes a 7.9
    percent increase and that the House and Senate are in the process of
    their markups.

-   He publicly thanked the members who would be rotating off the CISE
    AC and noted new members will be announced mid-summer.

-   Finally, he noted that his appointment as Assistant Director was
    drawing to a close. He further described that a search committee
    convened by NSF's Office of the Director was working hard to
    identify strong candidates to fill the position he will vacate. Dr.
    Deborah Estrin, a member of the search committee and a CISE AC
    member, reported that the search committee had received 60 to 70
    names and was in the process of identifying three to five of the
    most promising nominations to recommend to NSF management for
    interview.

**General Discussion**

One CISE AC member asked that NSF consider allowing rotating Program
Directors to work for NSF from their home institutions, noting that this
recommendation had been made in the past. The AC member proposed that
the current practice of one to four-year rotations that require physical
presence at NSF is not family friendly/career friendly and limits the
pool of applicants. Dr. Freeman noted that NSF has some Program
Directors working about 50 percent of their time from home. He further
noted that this was more difficult for Division Directors since they
manage staff directly, including those physically present at NSF.

## [Transforming Computer Science and Engineering]{.underline}

Dr. Freeman presented an update on CISE activities focused on
transforming the CISE field. He noted that CISE's objectives were: to
enable computer science (CS) to contribute to society more fully; to
mature as a discipline; and, to identify more ambitious, far-reaching
goals for the field. He described two ongoing programmatic activities
designed to contribute to the realization of these objectives -- the
Computing Community Consortium (CCC) and the Global Environment for
Networking Innovations (GENI).

**General Discussion**:

CISE AC members responded by identifying research and education
challenges and opportunities that might be addressed by the community.

-   The challenges of assuring data integrity, data preservation and
    issues of information security were noted. The CISE AC noted that
    these are examples of major challenges that impact society that CS
    research and education must help address.

-   CISE AC members noted that other disciplines have large initiatives
    whose success fundamentally relies on advances in CS. They noted
    that the CS community must leverage this need and not miss
    opportunities. Dr. Freeman noted that CISE staff are working with
    their colleagues within NSF to strengthen multidisciplinary
    opportunities.

-   The CISE AC noted that computer scientists have been modest in
    highlighting their achievements. They further noted that many big,
    intractable challenges face the CS field. They noted that the CS
    field must be more proactive in bringing these challenges to light
    and in convincing stakeholders that the CS community can effectively
    address them.

-   It was noted that CISE had recently sponsored or participated in
    several "grand challenges" conferences, and that the CRA frequently
    held a computing leadership summit

### *[GENI Update and Computing Community Consortium (CCC) Description/Update]{.underline}*

Dr. Aho provided a brief update on the GENI project and encouraged AC
members to talk with Dr. Larry Peterson, Princeton University and
Director of the PlanetLab Consortium, for additional details. Dr.
Spector provided an update on the GENI discussion held the day before
the AC meeting. He noted that the GENI design is a work in progress. The
CISE AC agreed they could support GENI as an important way of catalyzing
community activities that address problems of scale.

Dr. Crawford described a recent CISE solicitation focused on the
establishment of a Computing Community Consortium (CCC). She noted that
the CCC would be a vehicle for identifying grand challenges in
computing, including associated infrastructure and instrumentation
requirements. She noted that one indication of CCC success would be when
the identification of "big audacious goals" translated to increased
support for basic research in CS. She noted that CISE has not made use
of NSF's MREFC funding account to support computing research
infrastructure, in contrast to other NSF directorates and communities.
She reported that CISE was exploring large-scale infrastructure needs
that will allow pursuit of big audacious research goals. She further
noted that the CCC concept was developed to help identify these grand
challenges. Finally, she noted that CCC proposals were due June 10,
2006. Dr. Freeman clarified that more mature science and engineering
fields support both large infrastructure and fundamental scientific
research. He further noted that CISE is not talking about replacing one
for the other.

**General Discussion**

The following issues were raised in general discussion.

-   Big and Small

It was noted: that when the issue of "big" science arises, concerns
about "small" also arise; that smaller research/theoretical projects
must be supported; that larger experimental projects require more
coordination; that CS research infrastructure in and of itself must be
supported as opposed to computing infrastructure as a "hand maiden" for
other sciences; that it is difficult to do experimental design in the
absence of applications; that the CS community should not shy away from
doing things in the service of other disciplines; that the debate of big
vs. small science has been going on for a long time; that falling
proposal success rates would not be solved by going after "big" project
funding; that a case should be made for medium science and that the CS
community needed to identify 2-3 topics with achievable goals; and
finally, that since other fields are comfortable with big, medium, and
small science, so should CS.

-   CS Research Infrastructure

It was noted: that the CCC should go beyond targeting MREFC funding;
that one of the aspects of the CS disciplines is that huge pieces of
infrastructure are not required; that CCC should have a broader mandate
-- to start from big audacious goals and intractable problems, some of
which will develop into equipment based approaches but others into more
traditional research funding; that in CS, by the time a project is
completed, technology may have changed, requiring that for projects like
GENI, clear plans must be developed describing how up-to-date
technologies will be maintained; that CS infrastructure should be
compared to industrial infrastructure; and that in addition to building
systems, the community needed to understand them as well.

Dr. Peterson commented that one of the GENI design principles is not
only to allow experiments at scale but also experiments that happen
under realistic workloads (real user traffic, etc.) He further noted
that experimentation takes place across a diverse collection of
technologies.

Dr. Freeman noted that CISE hopes the success rates will improve and
that both the CCC and GENI activities have been designed to build
support for increases in investments in CS research and education. The
"big infrastructure" notion of GENI should be articulated as a good
goal, not stated as a budget builder.

The CISE AC expressed support for the CCC concept, noting that:

-   it is a exciting and a grand experiment in its own right, with GENI
    serving as a "test case";

-   it is an innovative vehicle for self-governance within the CS
    research community;

-   as it evolves, we should think beyond NSF since the CCC should be of
    interest to other industries and an opportunity for
    shared/additional resources. Dr. Freeman noted that the CCC will not
    be an NSF organization, and that it will be an organization of the
    community that others can participate in and support as well;

-   the CCC can help with specificity (e.g., for GENI);

-   the CCC must be bold and specific and have the research community's
    support.

One member noted that in the SBE AC meeting, the most exciting thing
noted about GENI is that it builds on a profound tradition \-- the
transformation of work. CS has brought to the world new ways of working
that at one time were impossible to imagine.

### *[Theoretical Computer Science]{.underline}*

Dr. Richard Karp, University of California at Berkeley, reported that
about a year and a half ago, there was concern that a funding crisis in
theoretical computer science (TCS) would result in lack of support for
students. He further reported that:

-   a committee was set up to investigate funding issues which he
    chaired;

-   the group pressed for intellectually sound arguments and formed a
    very productive partnership with CISE to pursue some of these
    objectives;

-   the group created a report to the Association for Computing
    Machinery's (ACM) Special Interest Group on Algorithms and
    Computation Theory (SIGACT);

-   the report was presented at the most recent Symposium on Theory of
    Computing (STOC) on the funding requirements and mechanisms for
    theoretical computer science.

-   activity in the TCS field has been expanding and areas of great
    potential are being identified;

-   in the field of Theory of Networked Computing, studies are being
    conducted on areas where TCS can interact with networking (security,
    intrusion detection, cryptography, spread of viruses/works, multiple
    agents, economic incentives, etc.);

-   two NSF-sponsored workshops were held on the Theory of Networked
    Computing, one at Princeton on February 16-17 and one at Berkeley on
    March 16-17, with reports forthcoming;

-   these activities tie into GENI and the FIND projects;

-   future CISE solicitations will be modified as a result of findings
    from these workshops; and

-   a new activity with broader implications for the Theory of
    Computation as a Lens on Natural and Theory Sciences might be
    developed.

Dr. Karp noted that Dr. Michael Foster, CCF Division Director, was
responsive to suggestions contained in the report.

**Discussion**:

It was noted that the community does not seem to have sufficient ability
to algebraically combine complex systems and predict how they will
behave. The dominant mode has been measurement and simulation. Hope was
expressed for a modest research effort for languages to express these
problems. Dr. Aho suggested the group think about what the CISE AC could
do to better engage the CS research and education community in the CCC
and GENI activities, among others. Four questions were posed:

1.  What needs to be done to foster the development of BHAGs (big, hairy
    audacious goals) that solve BHIPs (big, hairy, intractable
    problems)?

2.  How can a concerted community action best be developed?

3.  What can NSF do?

4.  What can the AC, individually and collectively, do?

## [2006-2011 NSF Strategic Plan]{.underline}

Dr. Suzi Iacono provided an update on the development of the 2006-2011
NSF Strategic Plan. Dr. Iacono reviewed the process NSF is going through
to gather input for the plan. CISE AC members were asked to provide
comments on the daft Strategic Plan when it was distributed previously.
She noted that the revised Plan would be discussed at the National
Science Board meeting in August 2006 and will be transmitted to Congress
by September 30, 2006.

## [Preparation for Discussion with Deputy Director and Director]{.underline}

The CISE AC discussed issues to raise with the NSF Director and Deputy
Director.

## [Next Steps for GENI]{.underline}

Dr. Freeman reported that:

-   an NSF team attended a meeting in Paris hosted by the Organization
    for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in March 2006. Drs.
    Larry Weber and Peter Freeman spoke at this meeting on Information
    Computing Communications Policy (ICCP);

-   NSF is starting to engage stakeholders in other countries about the
    opportunities associated with GENI;

-   for interagency activities, Dr. Wei Zhao co-chairs the Large Scale
    Networking subcommittee of the Networking and Information Technology
    Research and Development (NITRD) program that spans agencies across
    the Federal government. A July workshop is planned;

-   DOD requested a workshop on GENI that was held at NSF the previous
    week;

-   activity on GENI is progressing well;

-   in terms of technical work, Dr. Larry Peterson chairs a committee of
    about 40 people engaged in working and planning groups;

-   GENI is in the design stages with a conceptual design posted on the
    GENI website since January
    2006([www.geni.net/GDD/GDD-06-07.pdf](../www.geni.net/GDD/GDD-06-07.pdf));

-   this conceptual design was reviewed by a very strong senior panel;

-   there will be several more town hall meetings this summer to elicit
    broad community input;

-   there also will be small meetings within NSF to gain additional
    input;

-   Dr. Freeman will present GENI at the National Science Board's May
    meeting, the first presentation of GENI to the Board; and

-   a subcommittee of the CCC will provide scientific leadership for the
    GENI project.

**Discussion**:

-   One AC member noted that building infrastructure is one thing,
    having funds to sustain/operate the facility is another. Is this
    included? Dr. Crawford/Freeman noted that planning for operations
    funding is required in the MREFC process.

-   Dr. Freeman noted that the directorate is planning to make sure
    there is funding to support the research that can be performed using
    the facility, focused on long-term research.

-   One AC member noted that this will be a long process. The National
    Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) has taken 5 to 10 years to
    reach its present stage. This may be a 15 to 20 year cycle.

-   Dr. Freeman noted that GENI is estimated as a \$300M+ investment
    with an additional \$250 - \$300M in research over 5 years.

-   One AC member asked about assumptions being made about bandwidths
    and computer power in the design of GENI. Professor Peterson said
    GENI must be able to evolve and accept new technology throughout its
    lifetime.

-   One AC member asked if the planning group considered using
    satellites, in the interest of being revolutionary and global.

Dr. Freeman thanked the CISE AC for their input. He noted that he hopes
members will go back to their departments/organizations and serve as
GENI ambassadors. He noted that the CISE AC serves an important function
in carrying messages back to the CS research and education community.

## 

## [NSF Director and Deputy Director]{.underline}

Dr. Arden Bement, Jr., NSF Director, and Dr. Kathie Olsen, NSF Deputy
Director, were welcomed to the meeting by Dr. Aho.

Dr. Bement talked about the status of the FY 2007 budget. He noted that
NSF expects to operate under a continuing resolution until after the
November elections. Dr. Bement reviewed the timeframe for the
development of the FY 2008 budget, to be submitted to OMB in September
2006.

He noted that:

-   in the next few years, science and engineering have to invent the
    future, going beyond where we are today to be competitive on the
    international scene. One way in which NSF does this is through the
    graduate students we support.

-   There is direct benefit to the private sector. CISE is right at the
    pinnacle of what is going to be important, not only to push
    innovation forward but also to help develop the workforce for the
    21^st^ century and the infrastructure that goes with it. These are
    key roles assigned to NSF for the Nation and Dr. Bement expects CISE
    to play a major role in support of NSF.

Dr. Aho briefed Drs. Bement and Olsen on some of the CISE AC
discussions, including GENI and community involvement.

Dr. Olsen briefly talked about the NSF Strategic Plan.

Dr. Bement commented on the Office of Cyberinfrastruture (OCI). He
thanked Dr. Crawford for her leadership. The document entitled *NSF's
Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21^st^ Century Discovery* was highlighted
and is on NSF's website.

**Discussion**:

-   On GENI, Dr. Bement said GENI is exciting and generating
    international excitement. It was noted that the CISE AC is impressed
    with the GENI project. Inventing a new infrastructure that will
    allow for new exploration/new ideas is very powerful. NSF should
    make sure that the infrastructure is long-term in scope, but also
    recognize that research budgets must be large enough to support
    research using the infrastructure. The AC is happy to hear of
    international interest. Key issues that will be challenging to
    explore include scalability beyond the prototype, and end-to-end
    openness and common-good issues. A strong balance with core research
    must be maintained. GENI is a balanced program and is not intended
    to displace core investment but would rather stimulate core research
    activities. Dr. Bement noted that the GENI project is on target in
    its approach to involve the entire community and is moving through
    the process to reach MREFC status.

-   The CCC concept draws industry and the R&D community together in
    ways not done in the past. Intellectual leverage is important as
    well as geographic leverage. Dr. Bement said GENI and CCC have
    international dimensions. Leveraging can create huge
    synergy/benefits.

-   Dick Karp talked about theoretical computer science and interaction
    with the rest of CS and other science disciplines. One theme
    identified is algorithms as the language of science and needed for
    the analysis of data. In many fields of science, the models
    themselves are models of processes. As networks grow, they bring
    together configurations. This could be a theme with broad
    participation across NSF and it would influence education. Dr.
    Bement said it is timely and would be a topic of discussion at the
    upcoming NSF Senior Management Retreat. A marriage between
    mathematics and Computer Science is needed. There is a need for new
    functions that will be paramount where central organizing principles
    do not exist. Science needs to develop algorithms now if we are
    going to do something more than just factoring numbers.

Dr. Aho thanked Drs. Bement and Olsen for joining them. Dr. Bement
thanked the AC members for all they bring to NSF and how they help shape
NSF programs.

The group also noted their appreciation for the leadership that Dr.
Freeman has provided to CISE over the past four years, and noted that he
has been a tremendous asset. The CISE AC is very concerned with the
continued excellence of leadership of CISE and would like to see a
smooth and orderly transition for the AD position.

## [Education and Workforce Development]{.underline}

### Broadening Participation Competition

Dr. Jan Cuny provided an update on activities in the CISE Broadening
Participation in Computing (BPC) competition. (Dr. Cuny's presentation
can be found in Appendix II.) She noted that details on the projects are
available on the NSF/CISE web site.

Dr. Cuny noted that plans are to position BPC to take advantage of the
links between innovation and diversity and to engage industry. A town
hall meeting is planned with the National Center for Technology and
Women and NSF on *IT Innovation and the Role of Diversity* on May 17,
2006.

In the fall, an industry meeting is planned to look at ways NSF and
industry can collaborate. AC advice/ideas for that meeting were
solicited.

**Discussion**:

-   The question was asked: If you had double the budget for BPC, are
    there enough projects to fund. Dr. Cuny said CISE could have funded
    three times as many projects. The success rate was 14 percent in
    alliance awards and 10 percent in development projects. CISE is
    about to support a second competition and she thinks some proposals
    will be resubmitted.

-   What are the measures for success? Dr. Cuny said proposals must
    include an evaluation component and a social scientist on each panel
    commented on those plans. The American Association for the
    Advancement of Science (AAAS) will evaluate the whole program. CISE
    held a workshop for evaluators of the alliance awards and is now
    looking into the development projects as well.

-   One AC member noted that Microsoft issued a report on computing,
    *Towards 2020 Science*, but the panel of 40 people did not include
    even one woman. The CRA-sponsored Snowbird conference has three
    plenary sessions, all given by men. Major organizations are not
    tapping into the broad leadership available.

-   Dr. Cuny said CISE also has funds for BPC supplements. Anyone with a
    CISE grant ranging from \$30K to \$180K is eligible. There are still
    FY 2006 funds available and supplements are issued four times per
    year.

Dr. Ladner commended Dr. Cuny for doing a good job and energizing many
people. Dr. Freeman noted that CISE is very pleased with accomplishments
so far.

### Integrative Computing Education and Research

Dr. Wei Zhao presented on the Integrative Computing Education and
Research (ICER) program. The goal of the program is to prepare the
computing workforce for 2010 and beyond. (Dr. Zhao's presentation is
included under Appendix II)

Dr. Zhao asked the CISE AC to consider and discuss:

1.  identification of the grand challenges of computing education?

2.  how grand challenges should be addressed?

3.  how NSF can leverage resources with limited budgets?

**Discussion**:

-   One AC member asked if there was an active ACM curriculum effort and
    if CISE was interfacing with them. Dr. Zhao said CISE was
    interacting with ACM and that more details could be provided on
    request.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It was noted that Columbia University revamped its curriculum and
    that the Introduction to Computer Science course is not just
    programming, but teaches concepts, etc. and conveys a different
    impression of computer science.

-   It was also noted that NYU was able to turn around undergrad
    enrollments with non-majors who took computer courses and then
    became interested in CS. They offer blended courses such as CS in
    human sciences.

-   Some students are in colleges of engineering and accredited by AVA.
    It would be helpful to have AVA on board or CS cannot change any of
    their curriculums.

-   Dr. Freeman said the presentation was not specifically focused on
    just curriculum. CISE wants to know what other efforts can be
    leveraged. Are there people who should be participating in this
    effort to make it successful and are they engaged? If not, how might
    CISE attract those people?

-   It was noted that Georgia Tech has initiated an ambitious rethinking
    of undergraduate curriculum called "Threads." Students choose two
    threads and the two together make a CS degree. Threads have names
    like Computing and People, Computing and Media -- different ways of
    talking about what is in the curriculum. They still have difficult
    times ahead to implement the program and to present it to students,
    but it has progressed through the university approval system.
    Georgia Tech may create a model to combine threads from computing
    and biology as an option to the major/minor model.

-   It was noted that data to validate dropout rates is difficult to
    find. It is important to have measurements to understand what
    happens. The main challenge is to make sure IT fluency does not
    become a set of skills, but is core intellectual content (not just
    to CS majors).

-   Dr. Freeman said comments are relevant and the CISE AC was
    encouraged to send furtherl comments/suggestions via email.

-   Dr. Freeman thanked the CISE AC members for their
    input/contribution. He noted that it has been a deep honor to serve
    as the AD for CISE.

-   CISE AC members thanked Dr. Freeman for his service. Dr. Aho echoed
    this. The group said they hope to see Dr. Freeman at the October
    CISE AC meeting.

## [Merit Review]{.underline}

Dr. Michael Foster summarized the CISE Merit Review Committee Report.
(Dr. Foster's presentation can be found in Appendix II.) Dr. Foster
noted the following:

-   One improvement to the merit review process is providing more
    information to proposers on the rationale for each funding
    recommendation or declination. The CISE AC commented that it seems
    burdensome to ask Program Directors to comment more. Dr. Foster said
    only about five percent of proposals need comments and this should
    not add to the workload a great deal. Program Directors are already
    required to prepare review analyses and excerpts from the review
    analyses would be provided to PIs.

-   CISE plans to change panel procedures, standards and oversight for
    reviews and jackets. For example, CISE is experimenting with
    eliminating the panel rank ordering process so that reviewers spend
    more time developing substantive reviews that are provided to PIs,
    and less time in the panel negotiating proposal rank order
    positions.

**Discussion**:

-   The CISE AC expressed some concern with eliminating ranking of
    proposals in the review process. If there are six highly ranked
    proposals, but only two can be funded, ranking is important. In
    panel experience, panelists ranked proposals and then went back and
    modified summaries to support rationale. Without ranking, this could
    be lost. Panels should understand it is useful to rank proposals as
    competitive if they cannot be funded. Dr. Foster said CISE wants
    Program Directors to have the flexibility to make those decisions.

-   It was suggested that NSF develop a concise definition of Merit
    Review Criterion 2, Broader Impacts, and that NSF standard language
    needs to be revised/enhanced.

-   One AC member inquired of NSF's metrics for saying that the review
    system does well.

-   It was noted that in some journals, editors are allowed to reject
    papers that are just terrible. NSF cannot do this. NSF should not
    have to spend ages talking about proposals that do not have a
    chance. NSF Program Directors should spend time on ones that are the
    tough decisions.

-   Members have heard several times that panels are covering topics for
    which they lack expertise. The evaluation process is too democratic
    -- it gives equal voice to those who do not understand the proposals
    and those that have deep expertise about it. Dr. Foster said mail
    reviews are one way to ensure getting the best experts but they are
    very time consuming. Review panels streamline the process, but do
    not allow for the deeper reviews. CISE is trying to find ways to
    make more use of mail reviews and lighten the load on panelists
    themselves.

-   The CISE AC suggested adding a box to indicate reviewer knowledge
    for the proposal subject area.

-   Dr. Iacono said CISE is trying to give Program Directors more
    autonomy in decision making. CISE will experiment. If the changes do
    not generate the desired impact, they will try something else.

-   The CISE AC would like to see Program Directors have more discretion
    in funding proposals that perhaps aren't as mature as some others,
    but that may have higher impact for the future. It was noted that
    every year, the CISE AC recommends that NSF should fund more risky
    work/discretionary work.

## [Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS) COV Report]{.underline}

Dr. Brian Blake, Georgetown University (IIS COV member), summarized the
COV findings from the IIS Committee of Visitors (COV) report. He noted
that the COV review was in general very positive. (The COV report can be
found in Appendix II.)

Dr. Iacono thanked the COV and IIS staff for supporting the process. She
provided the CISE management response to the COV. She noted that:

-   the COV findings stimulated some changes in IIS operations that are
    already underway, noting that, for example, IIS is working on ways
    to improve the review process and increase program manager autonomy
    to find "rough jewels" with frontier research ideas. IIS will
    experiment with these ideas to see if they can affect change;

-   IIS developed a set of stories of investigators and their careers in
    the Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI) program that was
    very encouraging. They are posted on the NSF web site. A similar
    project is planned for the ITR program and is being considered at
    the division/Directorate level.

-   CISE AC members, as community mentors, might share their individual
    successful proposals in their departments/universities to help
    faculty understand what a successful proposal looks like.

-   Minority PIs must be encouraged to participate in NSF activities and
    to submit proposals.

-   When people do outreach visits, they not only do one talk to the
    major research university, but also stay an extra day to visit the
    community colleges and small schools in the local area to get the
    message across that diversity is a serious issue.

-   A formal CISE management response to the IIS COV report is being
    prepared, and that AC comments will be taken into consideration. The
    response and report will be submitted to Dr. Bement and will be
    published on the COV web site.

**Discussion**:

-   The CISE AC noted that switching from an annual solicitation to a
    solicitation released every 18 months was very disturbing to the
    community. They expressed concern that while it may have reduced
    workload and improved success rates, it sent a very dangerous signal
    to the community.

-   The CISE AC encouraged NSF to fund additional new investigators not
    already in the mix and endorsed the notion of letting new ideas in
    the door.

-   With respect to diversity, some AC members noted that they
    constantly hear from colleagues that they do not know what or how to
    write competitive proposals. Examples are listed in the NSF program
    guide but NSF needs to get the word out more prominently.

-   One AC member noted that PIs need more help in learning how to write
    proposals than just having winning ones to read. Informative
    workshops focused on successful proposal writing are one way. Dr.
    Iacono said NSF does this kind of outreach. She noted that faculty
    is also encouraged to visit NSF to talk with Program Directors.

Dr. Aho thanked Professor Blake and Dr. Iacono. The CISE AC thanked the
COV/IIS for the report.

## [Merit Review Discussion Continued]{.underline}

-   Is there a way Program Directors can serve as moderators for the
    panel reviews without forcing the outcome? Dr. Foster said that
    Program Directors that are more effective do this.

-   CISE has been talking about Program Director training on how to run
    panels (the CISE AC in general supported this idea).

-   The CISE AC suggested consideration of a standing panel to just
    review proposals and weed out unfundable proposals. Dr. Foster said
    that while it may be a way to save time, it is difficult to do in a
    fair way.

-   Dr. Foster heard the CISE AC concerns about the two-category idea.
    CISE will experiment and will pay attention to how it works or not.

## [New Business]{.underline}

With no further discussion, Dr. Aho thanked outgoing CISE AC members for
their participation. He thanked Drs. Peterson and Clark for providing an
overview of GENI. CISE AC feedback on the meeting format was encouraged.

The next CISE AC meeting is scheduled for October 20, 2006. With no
further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

**April 24, 2006 CISE AC Action Items Summary**

-   CISE AC members were asked to comment on the draft NSF Strategic
    Plan when available.

-   In the fall, an industry meeting is planned to look at ways NSF and
    industry can collaborate. AC advice/ideas for that meeting were
    encouraged.

-   *NSF's Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21^st^ Century Discovery*
    document is on the NSF website and comments are being solicited.

Appendix I

ATTENDEES

**[Members Present:]{.underline}**

**Professor Alfred V. Aho**, **Chair,** Department of Computer Science,
Columbia University, New York, NY

**Professor Annie Anton,** Center for Education & Research in
Information Assurance & Security, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

**Professor Randal Bryant**, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA

**Dr. Vinton Cerf**, Google/Regus, Herndon, VA

**Professor Peter Chen**, Computer Science Department, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA

**Professor Deborah Estrin**, UCLA Computer Science, Los Angeles, CA

**Professor David J. Farber**, Computer Science and Public Policy,
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

**Mr. Dwight A. Gourneau,** President, NAMTech, Inc., Rochester, MN

**Professor Barbara J. Grosz,** Division of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

**Professor John L. King**, University of Michigan, School of
Information, Ann Arbor, MI

**Dr. Richard Ladner**, Department of Computer Science, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA

**Dr. Daniel T. Ling**, Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA

**Professor Antonio Lopez**, Department of Computer Sciences & Computer
Engineering, Xavier University, New Orleans, LA

**Professor Joseph O'Rourke,** Department of Computer Sciences, Smith
College, Northampton, MA

**Professor Fred B. Schneider**, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

**Professor Marc Snir**, Department of Computer Science, University of
Illinois, Urbana, IL

**Dr. Alfred Z. Spector**, Vice President of Strategy and Technology,
IBM Software Group, Somers, NY

**Dr. David Tennenhouse,** Vice President and Director of Research,
Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

**Dr. Telle Whitney**, Institute for Women and Technology, Palo Alto, CA
(Ex Officio, CEOSE member)

**Professor Margaret Wright**, Computer Science Department, New York
University, New York, NY

**Professor Bryant W. York**, Department of Computer Science, Portland
State University, Portland, OR

**Professor Ellen W. Zegura**, College of Computing, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta, GA

**[Members Absent:]{.underline}**

**Professor William J. Dally,** Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA

**Professor Marti Hearst**, SIMS, University of California-Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA

**Professor Elizabeth R. Jessup** Department of Computer Science,
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO

**Dr. Maria M. Klawe**, School of Engineering, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ

**Professor Rosalind W. Picard,** Affective Computing Research, M.I. T.
Media Lab, Cambridge, MA

**Mr. Patrick Scaglia**, Internet and Computing Platform Research
Center, HP Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA

**[Invitees:]{.underline}**

**Professor Larry Peterson,** Chair of Computer Science, Princeton
University

**Professor Brian Blake**, Georgetown University

**[Senior CISE Staff Present:]{.underline}**

**Dr. Peter Freeman**, Assistant Director

**Dr. Deborah Crawford**, Director, GENI

**Dr. Michael Foster**, Division Director, Computing and Communication
Foundations (CCF)

**Dr. Suzi Iacono**, Division Director, Information and Intelligence
Systems

**Dr. Wei Zhao**, Division Director, Computer and Network Systems

Appendix II

PRESENTATIONS

[Update Memo](http://www.nsf.gov/cise/ac/private/2006_10_20/update.doc)

[Broadening Participation in Computing
(BPC)](http://www.nsf.gov/cise/ac/private/2006_10_20/bpc.pdf)

[Integrative Computing Education &
Research](http://www.nsf.gov/cise/ac/private/2006_10_20/icer.pdf)

[CISE Merit Review Committee
Report](http://www.nsf.gov/cise/ac/private/2006_10_20/merit_review.pdf)