Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  1. Upcoming milestones:

    1. TCGA Legacy symposium (9/26-9/29, posters starting this week)
    2. CPTAC F2F (Oct 15-18):
      1. for F2F our only licensing concern is access to the CPTAC communit
      2. so each user who wants access sends email to us, and is granted, b/c they are members of CPTAC consortiumn
    3. Paper on proteomics pipeline (Dec 2018)
  2. These all imply that pipelines should be made public-ready in near future

    1. Definition: releasing pipeline "in FC" is treated effectively as releasing source code
    2. In part because docs usually live in repo wiki, and so it must be opened to public for (unless docs are duplicated to elsewhere)
    3. Do we need to have an "I Agree" dialogue box for codes which require licenses?  For example, on codes which come from other labs.
    4. At the very least, for EXTERNAL codes used in our pipeline OUR codes which need commercial tools (like MatLab REs)
    5. For proteomic pipeline, Mani says it's ALL OK, everything can be run, for whatever reason, by anyone
    6. But we need to go over EVERY task in GDAC genomic pipeline to ensure all components (especially external codes) are releasable
      1. Including APOBEC, GSEA (and also tools like Philosopher from proteomic pipeline)
      2. We may want to release "genomic lite" pipeline, with certain tools omitted
    7. Possible interim solution:  until "I Agree" is possible at runtime in FC, to prevent commercial entities from profiting:
    8. Karl made strong point about re-distribution being what most method developers want to control/prevent, but how?
    9. Mike pointed out that while preventing re-distrib is important, mere "runnability" also needs to be monitored/protected:
    10. otherwise commercial entities can take our labor/tools (or even re-brand as their own) & then profit by analyzing/etc their data
    11. Chet pointed out that GenePattern team wrestled with this years ago, eventually taking the approach:  "We can't enforce good behavior,"  but we can record whether LICENSE terms have been acknowledged & record in a database, as well as record of each instance when a any user ran any tool.  Then let the lawyers fight it out if need be.
    12. Mike suggested that enforcing acknowledgement of LICENSE terms can be done with a boolean attribute or config parameter, which defaults to False, but user sets to True to signify that LICENSE terms have been read and/or accepted.  This facilitates "I Agree" dialog box suggested above for FireCloud UI, but also covers the programmatic use case.
  3. Is it time for us to Hydrant-ize our GDAN configs, which would benefit both genomic & proteomic pipelines (GDAN & CPTAC)

    1. Mani & Karsten considered this for proteo-genomic portion of pipelines, and decided NO, not until after Oct 2018 F2F (and possibly Dec paper)

    2. CGA then adopted similar position.

  4. Prioritization:
    1. This is substantial effort: really need extra SWE effort
    2. Also: we do not have staffing to respond to wide-ranging GISTIC, MutSig etc user questions
  5. Lastly:  policy on sharing methods/workspaces with collaborators, e.g. Kwiatkowski lab
    1. if the pipeline is instantiated in our GDAN (or CPTAC workflow) 
    2. and we provide access only through FireCloud
    3. then the method (and/or method configuration) is essentially for public consumption 
    4. and may be shared through FC with essentially anyone?
    5. but, in particular, Broadie collaborators (as a first step)

...