Hi @DamienAlline_143b, thanks for the stimulating thoughts.
As a general comment, I think that successful workshops are built around conversations, and in a good conversation, you need to both listen and speak. For me, then the biggest question is about the audience. Who will be in this audience and what conversations do we want to have with them.
At the end of the day, we are coming into these communities as providers of something - whether that be infrastructure, methods, resources, etc. Before we define the agenda of what we want provide, if I understand @DamienAlline_143b correctly, we need to know what our audience at WACREN is demanding. So, we should definitely make place for a few presentations of what the demands are from institutes and research groups which may be represented at WACREN.
I think that a conversation does need to be seeded, but if we simply give presentations of the work that we're doing or the tools we are proposing then we will certainly alienate some of the audience. What needs to be shown is a coherent vision of how research is undertaken in our vision. We need to have a very good overview presentation - perhaps independent of any particular project - which explains what we are bringing to the table and why. These should come back to themes that researchers can identify with :
- improving research output - quality, visibility
- collaboration and scaling of research projects
- improving the pipeline from teaching to research by integrating tools into the students' experience early on.
The individual tools of the trade - our science gateways, the applications, the computational and data infrastructure, the identity federations - all that stuff should be exposed naturally we discuss the issues I just mentioned. If we stick to these themes, we could have a very tight workshop.
What do you think, @ChrisRohrer, @DamienAlline_143b ?