Upcoming GENIE meeting at IIASA
Dear all, We at IIASA are already very excited to see you soon and to kick off the new school year together! We wanted to inform you that the meeting location has changed. The meeting will now be held at Webster Vienna Private University, Praterstraße 24, 1020 Vienna. This is a very central location, and given the collaborative, writing-focused style of the meeting, we thought a classroom setting with whiteboards, projectors, and breakout spaces would be ideal. Since this meeting will be work-intensive, kindly ensure you bring your laptop and charger. We will provide continuous coffee/tea and snacks (thus no clear coffee breaks) and teams take breaks as needed, and if you need to take a meeting, there will also be space available for focused work. There are plenty of nice hotels and Airbnb options nearby if you would like to adjust your accommodation. Otherwise, the venue is easily accessible from Hauptbahnhof (U1 line). Regarding social activities, we plan to focus on urban CDR and then also some communication training for policy briefs — more details will follow soon. We also suggest bringing yoga pants and/or running gear for some informal exercise sessions (more infos also to follow). While the agenda is still subject to minor changes, we wanted to share the more detailed preliminary plan with you (and what you could prepare before the meeting). As discussed during our GENIE meetings, the idea is to hold a writing-focused meeting (but can also be data analysis etc.). We will start with a brief plenary session where paper leads can pitch their paper idea, followed by dedicated time to work on the papers in smaller groups. The papers can be at different stages of development, and the goals of each group may vary. For example, if a paper is already at an advanced stage, the group lead might assign others to review specific sections. If it's still in an early phase, the team may choose to reframe the research question based on initial feedback from the full consortium etc. We have designed the meeting format to be interactive and flexible, with a balance between focused group work and opportunities for broader feedback from all participants. We will also make sure that related paper groups are spatially close to each other so that there is an opportunity to discuss some things across groups. At the top of the agenda<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WFWbamSuP_BDH_7qEufpQRg8aLwSsmCF/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109769331695152988796&rtpof=true&sd=true>, I have included a preliminary group allocation based on the preferences that all of you submitted earlier. Please review this and feel free to make adjustments — team members can also switch groups on site. There's no obligation to stick to the proposed groups, and this setup does not affect authorship in any way, as many of you will be co-authors across multiple papers. Next Steps: If the paper leads are happy with the proposed structure, it would be great if you could prepare a 5-minute pitch for your paper to present at the beginning of the meeting. These pitches should briefly cover: * The research question * Expected outcomes of the paper * What you would like to accomplish during the meeting (where do you need support from others at this stage) I have created a <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c7DmiuyljCykXfxPDjGy4fDxHEO_4Wwp?usp=sharing> Google Drive folder<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c7DmiuyljCykXfxPDjGy4fDxHEO_4Wwp?usp=sharing> where you can upload your pitch presentations, any drafts, and relevant literature you would like others to review ahead of or during the meeting. We have also scheduled the usual round of updates from all teams at the beginning of the meeting. Please keep these brief and focus on recent publications and upcoming papers that might be of interest to others. In addition, we have set aside some time to reflect on the remaining deliverables — this is simply to ensure that the papers we are proposing are aligned with what is still needed. Please feel free to comment on the agenda and also let me know in case I forgot to include someone! Best regards, Elina on behalf of IIASA team
Dear all, I hope you’re doing well and had a chance to recharge a little. We had a prep meeting for our upcoming GENIE consortium meeting on Monday and are very much looking forward to it—especially the opportunity to also introduce our new colleagues, Carley Celeste and Friedemann Gruner, to the group. After another review of the agenda, we thought it might be useful to share a few observations and suggestions for discussion: 1. *Time allocation for paper work* There is quite a bit of time dedicated to developing paper ideas. This will be very useful for topics with a clear scope and leadership, but it might also mean that participants can realistically only work on one paper across the two days. This could limit cross-group exchange. We wondered whether some small adjustments might help balance both focused work and broader interaction. 2. *Plenary discussion on synthesis papers* As we enter the final two years of GENIE, it might be valuable to hold an open plenary session to discuss key synthesis papers we want to prioritize. This could help identify shared priorities before diving into smaller groups. 3. *Projects without confirmed leads* At PIK, we’ve listed ideas we think are worth pursuing—such as the SRM review paper and the expert elicitation on CDR targets—but currently don’t have the capacity to lead these. We’re happy to initiate discussion, but unless others are keen to take these forward, it may not be worth spending too much time on them. Given that only two of four organizations proposed joint projects, others might still be interested in leading on these ideas. 4. *Clarity on session leads* We were unsure whether all sessions have designated leads and will be fully prepared. For example, who is leading the discussions on “upcoming deliverables,” the policy brief workshop, and the closing plenary? We hope these thoughts are helpful and look forward to seeing many of you in person soon! All the best, Jan Dear all, hope you are all well and had an opportunity to relax a little. We had a prep meeting for our GENIE consortium meeting next Monday. We are very much looking forward to it and are excited to see our new colleague Carley Celeste and Friedemann Gruner. Upon another review of the agenda, we did feel that there might be a need for some further discussion. 1. We feel that we have a lot of time allocated to work on the different paper ideas. This might be good for papers, where we have a clear idea as well as leadership. Moreover, it seems that people may be only able to work on one paper across the two days. This will limit exchange across the group. This sparked a few idea for some surgical adjustments (subsequent points). 2. Given that we are starting the last two years of GENIE, we may want to also have an open plenary discussion across key synthesis papers that we may want to write. Maybe we want to have a plenary session around this - we could work on some of the ideas that come out of that. 3. At PIK, we put down ideas that we think we should be working on together without having necessarily the capacity to lead them. This holds for the SRM review paper as well as the expert elicitation paper on the likelihood and challanges of meeting CDR targets. We would be happy to kick-start the discussion on these, but do not have the capacity to move them forward over the coming month. So unless someone else is interested, it may not be worthwhile to discuss them at length. However, given that only two out of four organisationa proposed joint projects to work on, there might be others who would like to move ahead with these. 4. We were unsure whether or not all sessions have clear leads and therefore will be adequately prepared. For example, who is leading the discussion on "upcoming deliverables", the policy brief workshop and the closing plenary? Hope these thoughts are useful. Looking forward to seeing most of you in person! All the best Jan On 31/07/2025 12:03, BRUTSCHIN Elina wrote:
Dear all,
We at IIASA are already very excited to see you soon and to kick off the new school year together!
We wanted to inform you that the meeting location has changed. The meeting will now be held at Webster Vienna Private University, Praterstraße 24, 1020 Vienna. This is a very central location, and given the collaborative, writing-focused style of the meeting, we thought a classroom setting with whiteboards, projectors, and breakout spaces would be ideal.Since this meeting will be work-intensive, kindly ensure you bring your laptop and charger.We will provide continuous coffee/tea and snacks(thus no clear coffee breaks) and teams take breaks as needed, and if you need to take a meeting, there will also be space available for focused work.
There are plenty of nice hotels and Airbnb options nearby if youwouldlike to adjust your accommodation. Otherwise, the venue is easily accessible from Hauptbahnhof(U1 line).
Regarding social activities, we plan to focus on urban CDR and then also some communication training for policy briefs— more details will follow soon. We also suggest bringing yoga pants and/or running gear for some informal exercise sessions(more infos also to follow).
While the agenda is still subject tominorchanges, we wanted to share the more detailed preliminary plan with you (and what you could prepare before the meeting).
As discussed during our GENIE meetings, the idea is to hold a *writing-focused meeting**(but can also be data analysis etc.)*. We will start with a brief *plenary session* where paper leads can *pitch their paper idea*, followed by dedicated time to work on the papers in smaller groups.
The papers can be at different stages of development, and the goals of each group may vary. For example, if a paper is already at an advanced stage, the group lead might assign others to review specific sections. If it's still in an early phase, the team may choose to reframe the research question based on initial feedback from the full consortium etc. We have designed the meeting format to be *interactive and flexible*, with a balance between focused group work and opportunities for broader feedback from all participants. We will also make sure that related paper groups are spatially close to each other so that there is an opportunity to discuss some things across groups.
At the top of the agenda <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WFWbamSuP_BDH_7qEufpQRg8aLwSsmCF/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109769331695152988796&rtpof=true&sd=true>, I have included a *preliminary group allocation* based on the preferences that all of you submitted earlier. Please review this and feel free to make adjustments — team members can also switch groups on site. There's no obligation to stick to the proposed groups, and this setup does not affect authorship in any way, as many of you will be co-authors across multiple papers.
*Next Steps:*
If the *paper leads* are happy with the proposed structure, it would be great if you could prepare a *5-minute pitch* for your paper to present at the beginning of the meeting. These pitches should briefly cover:
* The research question
* Expected outcomes of the paper
* What you would like to accomplish during the meeting (where do you need support from others at this stage)
I have created a<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c7DmiuyljCykXfxPDjGy4fDxHEO_4Wwp?usp=sharing>*Google Drive folder <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c7DmiuyljCykXfxPDjGy4fDxHEO_4Wwp?usp=sharing>* where you can upload your pitchpresentations, any drafts, and relevant literature you would like others to review ahead of or during the meeting.
We have also scheduled the usual round of updates from all teams at the beginning of the meeting. Please keep these brief and focus on recent publications and upcoming papers that might be of interest to others.
In addition, wehave set aside some time to reflect on the remaining deliverables — this is simply to ensure that the papers we are proposing are aligned with what is still needed.
Please feel free to comment on the agenda and also let me know in case I forgot to include someone!
Best regards,
Elinaon behalf of IIASA team
_______________________________________________ Genie mailing list --genie@maillist.au.dk To unsubscribe send an email togenie-leave@maillist.au.dk
-- Jan Christoph Minx, PhD Head of Research Group Evidence for Climate Solutions (ECS) Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (PIK) Torgauer Str. 12-15 10829 Berlin Germany
Dear Jan, Many thanks for very helpful and constructive points. On the first point, we will keep the format flexible. Our main objective is to make progress during the meeting—either by collecting written feedback on existing drafts or by developing paper outlines (this is why it is important we have enough laptops around and we will also provide post its, whiteboards, coffee, cookies etc.). This links to point 3: we have clarified and adjusted the paper leads, and we have defined the purpose of the opening plenary, which will focus on what remains to be done and how to prioritize it. We have also assigned clearer responsibilities (including note-taking) for each session and added more details about the communication workshop. We are excited that Astrid Kuffner (a journalist with an expertise in science communication) will join us: she will start with a 30-minute overview and then lead a 2.5 hour training session on effective research communication based on our input (e.g. interview talking points, social media post, press release examples from past GENIE work) and give us direct feedback on what we are doing well and what not so well. We hope that this will be useful for our policy briefs and synthesis tasks. Given that we are a small group and know each other well, we can stay flexible. If any group-work segments are not working, we can adjust and extend the plenary sessions as needed (or other way around). Best regards and hope this clarifies the raised points! Elina From: Jan Minx <jan.minx@pik-potsdam.de> Sent: 25 August 2025 17:22 To: BRUTSCHIN Elina <brutschin@iiasa.ac.at>; genie@maillist.au.dk Cc: KRAXNER Florian <kraxner@iiasa.ac.at>; GASSER Thomas <gasser@iiasa.ac.at>; Friedemann Gruner <friedemann.gruner@pik-potsdam.de>; Carley Celeste <carleycrey@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Genie] Upcoming GENIE meeting at IIASA Dear all, I hope you’re doing well and had a chance to recharge a little. We had a prep meeting for our upcoming GENIE consortium meeting on Monday and are very much looking forward to it—especially the opportunity to also introduce our new colleagues, Carley Celeste and Friedemann Gruner, to the group. After another review of the agenda, we thought it might be useful to share a few observations and suggestions for discussion: 1. Time allocation for paper work There is quite a bit of time dedicated to developing paper ideas. This will be very useful for topics with a clear scope and leadership, but it might also mean that participants can realistically only work on one paper across the two days. This could limit cross-group exchange. We wondered whether some small adjustments might help balance both focused work and broader interaction. 2. Plenary discussion on synthesis papers As we enter the final two years of GENIE, it might be valuable to hold an open plenary session to discuss key synthesis papers we want to prioritize. This could help identify shared priorities before diving into smaller groups. 3. Projects without confirmed leads At PIK, we’ve listed ideas we think are worth pursuing—such as the SRM review paper and the expert elicitation on CDR targets—but currently don’t have the capacity to lead these. We’re happy to initiate discussion, but unless others are keen to take these forward, it may not be worth spending too much time on them. Given that only two of four organizations proposed joint projects, others might still be interested in leading on these ideas. 4. Clarity on session leads We were unsure whether all sessions have designated leads and will be fully prepared. For example, who is leading the discussions on “upcoming deliverables,” the policy brief workshop, and the closing plenary? We hope these thoughts are helpful and look forward to seeing many of you in person soon! All the best, Jan Dear all, hope you are all well and had an opportunity to relax a little. We had a prep meeting for our GENIE consortium meeting next Monday. We are very much looking forward to it and are excited to see our new colleague Carley Celeste and Friedemann Gruner. Upon another review of the agenda, we did feel that there might be a need for some further discussion. 1. We feel that we have a lot of time allocated to work on the different paper ideas. This might be good for papers, where we have a clear idea as well as leadership. Moreover, it seems that people may be only able to work on one paper across the two days. This will limit exchange across the group. This sparked a few idea for some surgical adjustments (subsequent points). 2. Given that we are starting the last two years of GENIE, we may want to also have an open plenary discussion across key synthesis papers that we may want to write. Maybe we want to have a plenary session around this - we could work on some of the ideas that come out of that. 3. At PIK, we put down ideas that we think we should be working on together without having necessarily the capacity to lead them. This holds for the SRM review paper as well as the expert elicitation paper on the likelihood and challanges of meeting CDR targets. We would be happy to kick-start the discussion on these, but do not have the capacity to move them forward over the coming month. So unless someone else is interested, it may not be worthwhile to discuss them at length. However, given that only two out of four organisationa proposed joint projects to work on, there might be others who would like to move ahead with these. 4. We were unsure whether or not all sessions have clear leads and therefore will be adequately prepared. For example, who is leading the discussion on "upcoming deliverables", the policy brief workshop and the closing plenary? Hope these thoughts are useful. Looking forward to seeing most of you in person! All the best Jan On 31/07/2025 12:03, BRUTSCHIN Elina wrote: Dear all, We at IIASA are already very excited to see you soon and to kick off the new school year together! We wanted to inform you that the meeting location has changed. The meeting will now be held at Webster Vienna Private University, Praterstraße 24, 1020 Vienna. This is a very central location, and given the collaborative, writing-focused style of the meeting, we thought a classroom setting with whiteboards, projectors, and breakout spaces would be ideal. Since this meeting will be work-intensive, kindly ensure you bring your laptop and charger. We will provide continuous coffee/tea and snacks (thus no clear coffee breaks) and teams take breaks as needed, and if you need to take a meeting, there will also be space available for focused work. There are plenty of nice hotels and Airbnb options nearby if you would like to adjust your accommodation. Otherwise, the venue is easily accessible from Hauptbahnhof (U1 line). Regarding social activities, we plan to focus on urban CDR and then also some communication training for policy briefs — more details will follow soon. We also suggest bringing yoga pants and/or running gear for some informal exercise sessions (more infos also to follow). While the agenda is still subject to minor changes, we wanted to share the more detailed preliminary plan with you (and what you could prepare before the meeting). As discussed during our GENIE meetings, the idea is to hold a writing-focused meeting (but can also be data analysis etc.). We will start with a brief plenary session where paper leads can pitch their paper idea, followed by dedicated time to work on the papers in smaller groups. The papers can be at different stages of development, and the goals of each group may vary. For example, if a paper is already at an advanced stage, the group lead might assign others to review specific sections. If it's still in an early phase, the team may choose to reframe the research question based on initial feedback from the full consortium etc. We have designed the meeting format to be interactive and flexible, with a balance between focused group work and opportunities for broader feedback from all participants. We will also make sure that related paper groups are spatially close to each other so that there is an opportunity to discuss some things across groups. At the top of the agenda<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WFWbamSuP_BDH_7qEufpQRg8aLwSsmCF/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109769331695152988796&rtpof=true&sd=true>, I have included a preliminary group allocation based on the preferences that all of you submitted earlier. Please review this and feel free to make adjustments — team members can also switch groups on site. There's no obligation to stick to the proposed groups, and this setup does not affect authorship in any way, as many of you will be co-authors across multiple papers. Next Steps: If the paper leads are happy with the proposed structure, it would be great if you could prepare a 5-minute pitch for your paper to present at the beginning of the meeting. These pitches should briefly cover: 1. The research question 1. Expected outcomes of the paper 1. What you would like to accomplish during the meeting (where do you need support from others at this stage) I have created a <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c7DmiuyljCykXfxPDjGy4fDxHEO_4Wwp?usp=sharing> Google Drive folder<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c7DmiuyljCykXfxPDjGy4fDxHEO_4Wwp?usp=sharing> where you can upload your pitch presentations, any drafts, and relevant literature you would like others to review ahead of or during the meeting. We have also scheduled the usual round of updates from all teams at the beginning of the meeting. Please keep these brief and focus on recent publications and upcoming papers that might be of interest to others. In addition, we have set aside some time to reflect on the remaining deliverables — this is simply to ensure that the papers we are proposing are aligned with what is still needed. Please feel free to comment on the agenda and also let me know in case I forgot to include someone! Best regards, Elina on behalf of IIASA team _______________________________________________ Genie mailing list -- genie@maillist.au.dk<mailto:genie@maillist.au.dk> To unsubscribe send an email to genie-leave@maillist.au.dk<mailto:genie-leave@maillist.au.dk> -- Jan Christoph Minx, PhD Head of Research Group Evidence for Climate Solutions (ECS) Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (PIK) Torgauer Str. 12-15 10829 Berlin Germany
Dear all, A few final reminders ahead of tomorrow’s meeting: * Please review the updated agenda<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WFWbamSuP_BDH_7qEufpQRg8aLwSsmCF/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109769331695152988796&rtpof=true&sd=true> for directions and links to the Google Drive<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1v0pM1lLeyZQevYzKHPmM62ecrdRbCXFH?usp=drive_link> folder. * Upload your slides to the Presentations folder so we can switch between talks smoothly. We will meet you at Webster between 08:30–09:00 and take you to the fifth floor, where we have two seminar rooms booked (5.01 and 5.02). If you would like breakfast beforehand, I recommend Café Balthasar<https://share.google/wOrNwFqePv0J7R5sK> (try the cheesecake or almond croissant) or Neyse<https://share.google/e15qLn06gu3HVanUU> (great for the friendly atmosphere-> rare in Viennese cafes). If you are willing to spend lots of money on bread, then also Öferl<https://share.google/SqdJFoT5qyiqn2qCk>. Thanks and see you tomorrow! Best regards, Elina From: BRUTSCHIN Elina Sent: 26 August 2025 16:36 To: Jan Minx <jan.minx@pik-potsdam.de>; genie@maillist.au.dk Cc: KRAXNER Florian <kraxner@iiasa.ac.at>; GASSER Thomas <gasser@iiasa.ac.at>; Friedemann Gruner <friedemann.gruner@pik-potsdam.de>; Carley Celeste <carleycrey@gmail.com>; HWONG Yi-Ling <hwong@iiasa.ac.at> Subject: RE: [Genie] Upcoming GENIE meeting at IIASA Dear Jan, Many thanks for very helpful and constructive points. On the first point, we will keep the format flexible. Our main objective is to make progress during the meeting—either by collecting written feedback on existing drafts or by developing paper outlines (this is why it is important we have enough laptops around and we will also provide post its, whiteboards, coffee, cookies etc.). This links to point 3: we have clarified and adjusted the paper leads, and we have defined the purpose of the opening plenary, which will focus on what remains to be done and how to prioritize it. We have also assigned clearer responsibilities (including note-taking) for each session and added more details about the communication workshop. We are excited that Astrid Kuffner (a journalist with an expertise in science communication) will join us: she will start with a 30-minute overview and then lead a 2.5 hour training session on effective research communication based on our input (e.g. interview talking points, social media post, press release examples from past GENIE work) and give us direct feedback on what we are doing well and what not so well. We hope that this will be useful for our policy briefs and synthesis tasks. Given that we are a small group and know each other well, we can stay flexible. If any group-work segments are not working, we can adjust and extend the plenary sessions as needed (or other way around). Best regards and hope this clarifies the raised points! Elina From: Jan Minx <jan.minx@pik-potsdam.de<mailto:jan.minx@pik-potsdam.de>> Sent: 25 August 2025 17:22 To: BRUTSCHIN Elina <brutschin@iiasa.ac.at<mailto:brutschin@iiasa.ac.at>>; genie@maillist.au.dk<mailto:genie@maillist.au.dk> Cc: KRAXNER Florian <kraxner@iiasa.ac.at<mailto:kraxner@iiasa.ac.at>>; GASSER Thomas <gasser@iiasa.ac.at<mailto:gasser@iiasa.ac.at>>; Friedemann Gruner <friedemann.gruner@pik-potsdam.de<mailto:friedemann.gruner@pik-potsdam.de>>; Carley Celeste <carleycrey@gmail.com<mailto:carleycrey@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [Genie] Upcoming GENIE meeting at IIASA Dear all, I hope you’re doing well and had a chance to recharge a little. We had a prep meeting for our upcoming GENIE consortium meeting on Monday and are very much looking forward to it—especially the opportunity to also introduce our new colleagues, Carley Celeste and Friedemann Gruner, to the group. After another review of the agenda, we thought it might be useful to share a few observations and suggestions for discussion: 1. Time allocation for paper work There is quite a bit of time dedicated to developing paper ideas. This will be very useful for topics with a clear scope and leadership, but it might also mean that participants can realistically only work on one paper across the two days. This could limit cross-group exchange. We wondered whether some small adjustments might help balance both focused work and broader interaction. 2. Plenary discussion on synthesis papers As we enter the final two years of GENIE, it might be valuable to hold an open plenary session to discuss key synthesis papers we want to prioritize. This could help identify shared priorities before diving into smaller groups. 3. Projects without confirmed leads At PIK, we’ve listed ideas we think are worth pursuing—such as the SRM review paper and the expert elicitation on CDR targets—but currently don’t have the capacity to lead these. We’re happy to initiate discussion, but unless others are keen to take these forward, it may not be worth spending too much time on them. Given that only two of four organizations proposed joint projects, others might still be interested in leading on these ideas. 4. Clarity on session leads We were unsure whether all sessions have designated leads and will be fully prepared. For example, who is leading the discussions on “upcoming deliverables,” the policy brief workshop, and the closing plenary? We hope these thoughts are helpful and look forward to seeing many of you in person soon! All the best, Jan Dear all, hope you are all well and had an opportunity to relax a little. We had a prep meeting for our GENIE consortium meeting next Monday. We are very much looking forward to it and are excited to see our new colleague Carley Celeste and Friedemann Gruner. Upon another review of the agenda, we did feel that there might be a need for some further discussion. 1. We feel that we have a lot of time allocated to work on the different paper ideas. This might be good for papers, where we have a clear idea as well as leadership. Moreover, it seems that people may be only able to work on one paper across the two days. This will limit exchange across the group. This sparked a few idea for some surgical adjustments (subsequent points). 2. Given that we are starting the last two years of GENIE, we may want to also have an open plenary discussion across key synthesis papers that we may want to write. Maybe we want to have a plenary session around this - we could work on some of the ideas that come out of that. 3. At PIK, we put down ideas that we think we should be working on together without having necessarily the capacity to lead them. This holds for the SRM review paper as well as the expert elicitation paper on the likelihood and challanges of meeting CDR targets. We would be happy to kick-start the discussion on these, but do not have the capacity to move them forward over the coming month. So unless someone else is interested, it may not be worthwhile to discuss them at length. However, given that only two out of four organisationa proposed joint projects to work on, there might be others who would like to move ahead with these. 4. We were unsure whether or not all sessions have clear leads and therefore will be adequately prepared. For example, who is leading the discussion on "upcoming deliverables", the policy brief workshop and the closing plenary? Hope these thoughts are useful. Looking forward to seeing most of you in person! All the best Jan On 31/07/2025 12:03, BRUTSCHIN Elina wrote: Dear all, We at IIASA are already very excited to see you soon and to kick off the new school year together! We wanted to inform you that the meeting location has changed. The meeting will now be held at Webster Vienna Private University, Praterstraße 24, 1020 Vienna. This is a very central location, and given the collaborative, writing-focused style of the meeting, we thought a classroom setting with whiteboards, projectors, and breakout spaces would be ideal. Since this meeting will be work-intensive, kindly ensure you bring your laptop and charger. We will provide continuous coffee/tea and snacks (thus no clear coffee breaks) and teams take breaks as needed, and if you need to take a meeting, there will also be space available for focused work. There are plenty of nice hotels and Airbnb options nearby if you would like to adjust your accommodation. Otherwise, the venue is easily accessible from Hauptbahnhof (U1 line). Regarding social activities, we plan to focus on urban CDR and then also some communication training for policy briefs — more details will follow soon. We also suggest bringing yoga pants and/or running gear for some informal exercise sessions (more infos also to follow). While the agenda is still subject to minor changes, we wanted to share the more detailed preliminary plan with you (and what you could prepare before the meeting). As discussed during our GENIE meetings, the idea is to hold a writing-focused meeting (but can also be data analysis etc.). We will start with a brief plenary session where paper leads can pitch their paper idea, followed by dedicated time to work on the papers in smaller groups. The papers can be at different stages of development, and the goals of each group may vary. For example, if a paper is already at an advanced stage, the group lead might assign others to review specific sections. If it's still in an early phase, the team may choose to reframe the research question based on initial feedback from the full consortium etc. We have designed the meeting format to be interactive and flexible, with a balance between focused group work and opportunities for broader feedback from all participants. We will also make sure that related paper groups are spatially close to each other so that there is an opportunity to discuss some things across groups. At the top of the agenda<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WFWbamSuP_BDH_7qEufpQRg8aLwSsmCF/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109769331695152988796&rtpof=true&sd=true>, I have included a preliminary group allocation based on the preferences that all of you submitted earlier. Please review this and feel free to make adjustments — team members can also switch groups on site. There's no obligation to stick to the proposed groups, and this setup does not affect authorship in any way, as many of you will be co-authors across multiple papers. Next Steps: If the paper leads are happy with the proposed structure, it would be great if you could prepare a 5-minute pitch for your paper to present at the beginning of the meeting. These pitches should briefly cover: 1. The research question 1. Expected outcomes of the paper 1. What you would like to accomplish during the meeting (where do you need support from others at this stage) I have created a <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c7DmiuyljCykXfxPDjGy4fDxHEO_4Wwp?usp=sharing> Google Drive folder<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1c7DmiuyljCykXfxPDjGy4fDxHEO_4Wwp?usp=sharing> where you can upload your pitch presentations, any drafts, and relevant literature you would like others to review ahead of or during the meeting. We have also scheduled the usual round of updates from all teams at the beginning of the meeting. Please keep these brief and focus on recent publications and upcoming papers that might be of interest to others. In addition, we have set aside some time to reflect on the remaining deliverables — this is simply to ensure that the papers we are proposing are aligned with what is still needed. Please feel free to comment on the agenda and also let me know in case I forgot to include someone! Best regards, Elina on behalf of IIASA team _______________________________________________ Genie mailing list -- genie@maillist.au.dk<mailto:genie@maillist.au.dk> To unsubscribe send an email to genie-leave@maillist.au.dk<mailto:genie-leave@maillist.au.dk> -- Jan Christoph Minx, PhD Head of Research Group Evidence for Climate Solutions (ECS) Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (PIK) Torgauer Str. 12-15 10829 Berlin Germany
participants (2)
-
BRUTSCHIN Elina -
Jan Minx