Difference between revisions of "Draft Excom Minutes"

Revision as of 20:10, November 3, 2010

ESIP Federation Executive Committee, October 14, 2010

Attendees: Jim Frew; Patricia Huff, Chuck Hutchinson; Chris Lenhardt; Ken McDonald; Carol Meyer; Margaret Mooney; Rahul Ramachandran; Rob Raskin; Annette Schloss

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jim Frew at 2:05 pm.

1. Adoption of Minutes A minor edit was made by Chris Lenhardt to the draft minutes on the wiki. A motion to adopt the revised minutes was offered by Chuck Hutchinson and seconded by Annette Schloss. Without further discussion, the minutes were approved by acclamation.

2. Martha Maiden Award Carol Meyer noted that nominations are being accepted for the 2011 Martha Maiden Award. She urged the formation of an ad hoc subcommittee to review the nominations received, with the ESIP Type Reps and the Federation Vice President comprising the subcommittee. The Executive Committee concurred with this recommendation

Action items:

Reminder for request for nominations to be sent to esip-all.
Notify Type Reps of subcommittee’s formation.
Add information to wiki from past nomination letters.

3. Winter Meeting Planning Update The Executive Committee discussed the proposed meeting theme – Evaluating and Maximizing the Value of Earth Science Information. Supportive of the overall intent of the theme, the Executive Committee refined the language and offered the folllowing alternative to the Visioneers Working Group: Evaluating and Maximizing the Impact of Earth Science Information.

Several speaker invitations have been issued (GWU, Google Analytics, Heidi Cullen, OMB, NOAA) and others are pending (Agency panel, Foundation speaker)

Looking for a pathway to the Moore Foundation; Packard Foundation; National Geographic; Pew; Heinz; Keck to speak about Foundation criteria for evaluating the impact of programs they fund.

ESIP Federation Committees Clusters Working Group Chairs have been contacted about breakout session needs.

Breakout sessions will be asked for improved report outs from their meetings.

Poster Session Competition

New this meeting: Awards for best of show and poster representing the best fit for the theme of the meeting. The Visioneers Working Group will work out the details.

Other Breakout

Possibly IT&I hosted breakout on mobile apps. Rahul Ramachandran to gauge IT&I interest in offering this. This is in response to an outside effort on mobile citizen science apps development for described by Annette Schloss.

Action items:

Jim Frew to inquire about connections to Packard and National Geographic.
Carol Meyer to ask Visioneers for guidance on reports from breakout sessions.
Carol Meyer to ask Visioneers to work out details on poster session competition.

4. Partnership Committee Update Annette Schloss reported that the Partnership Committee has discussed problems with ESIP Type definitions and the ability to establish a quorum at ESIP Federation business meetings.

ESIP Types Definitions:

Discussed associate and student memberships. Member survey revealed that there was strong opposition to individual memberships. No associate membership is being recommended. Instead of a student membership, the ESIP Federation will start up a Student Cluster, utilizing academic member students.

The Partnership Committee decided to keep ESIP types and tweak definitions for Types I & III.
To address the quorum problem, the Partnership Committee recommended that each ESIP partner ‘renew’ its membership periodically (perhaps every 2-3 years)

Action Items:

Send revised ESIP Type definitions to Executive Committee for review at November telecon.
Create a Student Cluster.

5. Outreach Jim Frew reported on the National Geoinformatics Community (NGC) meeting, attended by him, Rob Raskin and Carol Meyer. The NGC is based in USGS’ solid Earth community and is trying to form a community around Geoinformatics. There was a lot of focus on process and governance. An impromptu opportunity was provided for Jim Frew to offer an overview of the ESIP Federation, which was politely received. Rob Raskin added that the initiative originated out of GSA a few years ago, with it still not being clear about the direction it will take. Rob Raskin suggested that we offer a solid Earth session at a future meeting

Action items:

Carol Meyer to follow up with key people from the NGC to invite them to the Winter ESIP Federation meeting

Carol Meyer reported that the AGU Data Management Plan workshop has been approved for the Fall 2010 AGU.

6. Funding Update Carol Meyer reported that a new 2-year Cooperative Agreement is in place with NOAA. She also reported that a small EPA grant in support of the summer 2010 ESIP Federation meeting was recently awarded.

7. Other Business There was no other businees.

Chuck Hutchinson offered a motion to adjourn (seconded by Chris Lenhardt). Wtihout discussion, the motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 2:57 pm.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Executive_Committee |Back to Executive Committee Main Page]]
+'''ESIP Federation Executive Committee, October 14, 2010'''
-'''ESIP Federation Executive Committee, September 9, 2010'''
+Attendees:  Jim Frew; Patricia Huff, Chuck Hutchinson; Chris Lenhardt; Ken McDonald; Carol Meyer; Margaret Mooney; Rahul Ramachandran; Rob Raskin; Annette Schloss
-'''Attendees'''
+The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jim Frew at 2:05 pm.
-*Chris Lenhardt
-*Karl Benedict
-*Rob Raskin
-*Steve Berrick
-*Michael Goodman
-*Annette Schloss
-*Peter Fox
-*Carol Meyer
-*Brian Rogan
-The meeting was called to order by Vice President Lenhardt at 2:06 pm.
+. Adoption of Minutes
+A minor edit was made by Chris Lenhardt to the draft minutes on the wiki.  A motion to adopt the revised minutes was offered by Chuck Hutchinson and seconded by Annette Schloss.  Without further discussion, the minutes were approved by acclamation.
-. Adoption of Minutes<br>
+. Martha Maiden Award
-A point of order was offered by Chris Lenhardt to note the last meeting (in Knoxville) was not an official meeting.  Instead, it was a working meeting for which no minutes were taken.  The May minutes were considered, with Karl Benedict offering a motion to adopt the minutes (seconded by Chris Lenhardt). Without further discussion, the minutes were approved by acclamation. <br>
+Carol Meyer noted that nominations are being accepted for the 2011 Martha Maiden Award.  She urged the formation of an ad hoc subcommittee to review the nominations received, with the ESIP Type Reps and the Federation Vice President comprising the subcommittee.  The Executive Committee concurred with this recommendation
-. Summer Meeting Debrief<br>
+Action items:
-Carol Meyer led a discussion about the summer meeting, including a summary of evaluation results presented by Brian Rogan.   The ensuing discussion raised some questions about additional data to capture from the survey results including:
+*Reminder for request for nominations to be sent to esip-all.
-*Can the organizations represented by new attendees be identified?  (i.e. are these new organizations or new people?)
+*Notify Type Reps of subcommittee’s formation.
-*In the future, can we capture posters as pdf submissions? (so that data from the posters can be mined for metrics, institutional memory, collaborations)
+*Add information to wiki from past nomination letters.
-*Can the registration system include a question about first time attendee status?  (so that we can gauge interest in an ESIP 101 session) <br>
-The ESIP 101 session was lightly attended.  Jim Frew gave the overview presentation.  A number of questions were asked during the session. There was a general sense that this session should be offered at future ESIP Federation meetings, perhaps on the first day of future meetings. <br>
-. Winter Meeting Update<br>
+. Winter Meeting Planning Update
-Planning for the Winter 2011 is just underway, with the Visioneers having met only one time.  The Visioneers are leaning toward a theme that builds off of our tagline, Making Data Matter.  The overall vision for the meeting is to provide a framework for evaluating the value of data. This topic is thought to be very relevant for the community, with the ESIP Federation potentially providing training as a service to the community.  NASA, NOAA and NSF are known to be interested in this topic.  There was a discussion of evaluation as a theme with several important points being made:
+The Executive Committee discussed the proposed meeting theme – Evaluating and Maximizing the Value of Earth Science Information.  Supportive of the overall intent of the theme, the Executive Committee refined the language and offered the folllowing alternative to the Visioneers Working Group: Evaluating and Maximizing the Impact of Earth Science Information.
-*There has been an ongoing conversation with the director of George Washington University’s Evaluators Institute.  There is great interest in engaging this group in the hope that they will help our community improve the evaluations done for projects. There is interest in having a framework for earth science program evaluation (or a set of frameworks).  Additional conversations have led to a discussion about an intensive evaluation workshop at a future ESIP Federation meeting. The ESIP There is also a winter institute and anyone who might be interested should contact Carol.
-*Chris Lenhardt mentioned that people might initially have a hard time seeing Evaluation as a worthwhile topic in and of itself, but many PIs and others who could find value but how to determine the value would need to be demonstrated.
-*Michael Goodman discussed what the DAACs do for evaluation.  Carol mentioned that ESIP doesn’t have as well defined a base as the DAACs and it probably would present some challenges to try and replicate it within the context of the ESIP Federation.
-*There was consensus that what we are really looking for are impact metrics or “customer service” metrics; how well do we serve our larger constituency and what is the return on investment? <br>
-The Visioneers are still developing the theme.  The meeting page and registration system are under development, with an expectation that registration will open in mid- to late-October.
-The next visioneers call is September 20, with bi-weekly meetings expected through October.
-. Preview of the Summer Meeting<br>
+*Several speaker invitations have been issued (GWU, Google Analytics, Heidi Cullen, OMB, NOAA) and others are pending (Agency panel, Foundation speaker)
-Carol and Karl Benedict recently spent time to scout out the 2011 summer meeting venue.  Surprisingly, the University of New Mexico doesn’t have nearby hotel lodging. The university facilities are very attractive but the lack of nearby housing is a shortcoming.  Unexpectedly, space was available in Santa Fe, NM and two local hotels offered the federal per diem rate for the duration of the meeting.  The traditional meeting dates were changed to accommodate the move to Santa Fe and will be the week of July 11th.  It was pointed out that this meeting will be the same week as ESRI’s annual users’ conference.  The consensus was that there would not be too much overlap between the two meetings.<br>
+:*Looking for a pathway to the Moore Foundation; Packard Foundation; National Geographic; Pew; Heinz; Keck to speak about Foundation criteria for evaluating the impact of programs they fund.
-. Funding Updates<br>
+*ESIP Federation Committees Clusters Working Group Chairs have been contacted about breakout session needs.
-*The ESIP Federation has been awarded another small EPA grant to support the 2010 summer meeting
+:*Breakout sessions will be asked for improved report outs from their meetings.
-*The NOAA grant is making its way through the grants process.  In the process, it was inadvertently designated as a grant rather than a cooperative agreement., thus creating some delays because of how the proposal was written.  This has been cleared up and we don’t expect any further red flags to be raised.
-*Year three of the NASA cooperative agreement is in place. <br>
-. Outreach<br>
+*Poster Session Competition
-The ESIP Federation attended IGARSS this year and had an exhibit.  There is one new partnership application that came out of the meeting. In the course of staffing the booth, Carol had a conversation with Hans-Peter Plag, who works closely with the GEO Science and Technology Committee (STC).  He noted that he and others had been trolling the Federation’s wiki (especially the work of the Data Preservation and Stewardship Cluster).  The information gleaned included a report that the STC was utilizing information related to data citation as a starting point for its own discussions.  Hans-Peter asked that the ESIP Federation send a representative to the next STC meeting to inform that GEO committee of the on-going work being done by members and the ESIP Federation community.  Mark Parsons agreed to represent the ESIP Federation at the meeting on data citation and data quality issues. <br>
+:*New this meeting: Awards for best of show and poster representing the best fit for the theme of the meeting.  The Visioneers Working Group will work out the details.
-Chris and Carol met with Brian Wee, the outreach person of NEON.  NEON is expected to submit an application to join the ESIP Federation.  Also, Brian is open to helping the ESIP Federation get in the door at both NSF and USGS.
-Carol and Karl Benedict met with the PI of the NSF DataOne project.  DataOne also is expected to submit and application for membership. <br>
-Chris and Carol briefed the NOAA Environmental Data Management Committee, an internal NOAA Committee that is tasked with developing common practices for data management within the agency.  All of NOAA’s line offices are represented on the Committee.  NOAA seems to be eager to work with the ESIP Federation and use us as a resource for helping the agency meet its internal data management goals.<br>
-There is a national geoinformatics community trying to form and there will be an organizing meeting later in the month.  Carol and Jim Frew will represent the ESIP Federation at the meeting.<br>
-. New Activities<br>
+*Other Breakout
-There are a several new clusters being formed or considered:
+:*Possibly IT&I hosted breakout on mobile apps. Rahul Ramachandran to gauge IT&I interest in offering this.  This is in response to an outside effort on mobile citizen science apps development for described by Annette Schloss.
-*An Information and Data Quality Cluster led by Greg Leptoukh and a Data and Visualization Cluster led by Kevin Ward have been created.
-*There also has been a discussion about the formation of a new Provenance Cluster. The hold up is related to whether this new cluster would be independent or remain part of the Data Preservation and Stewardship Cluster.  The consensus seems to be that it be the latter.
-*The Education Committee is looking to propose formation of a Climate Education Working Group at its next telecon, September 16th. <br>
-. Strategic Plan and Metrics Discussion<br>
+Action items:
-Carol described the results from the July metrics discussion at the summer meeting and inquired if the notes adequately captured the essence of the discussion and if the discussion results are leading us down the correct path. The general sense of the discussion was that there is a lot of currency in the ESIP Federation, which is not being fully promoted or captured. Much discussion centered on how we promote what we do and how we capture knowledge generated in the ESIP Federation context.
+*Jim Frew to inquire about connections to Packard and National Geographic.
-Next Steps:
+*Carol Meyer to ask Visioneers for guidance on reports from breakout sessions.
-*Data and information mining from existing sources:
+*Carol Meyer to ask Visioneers to work out details on poster session competition.
-:*poster abstracts and the posters themselves
-:*minutes for the different activities of the ESIP Federation
+. Partnership Committee Update
-:*meeting surveys
+Annette Schloss reported that the Partnership Committee has discussed problems with ESIP Type definitions and the ability to establish a quorum at ESIP Federation business meetings.
-:*interviews with people who participate in the ESIP Federation
-*Formalize how committees report on their activities and what they should be concerned about.  There should be some guidance from the groups so that what is returned is useful.
+*ESIP Types Definitions:
-*Create an ESIP Federation elevator speech and communications plan.
+:*Discussed associate and student memberships. Member survey revealed that there was strong opposition to individual memberships.  No associate membership is being recommended.  Instead of a student membership, the ESIP Federation will start up a Student Cluster, utilizing academic member students.
-:*new website to be launched
+::*The Partnership Committee decided to keep ESIP types and tweak definitions for Types I & III.
-:*wiki clean up
+::*To address the quorum problem, the Partnership Committee recommended that each ESIP partner ‘renew’ its membership periodically (perhaps every 2-3 years)
-*Develop Winter meeting theme focused on evaluation. <br>
-Chris mentioned that much of this has a marketing or PR feel to it.  How can this content be repackaged to put the best face of the organization forward?  In addition to having the evaluation folks coming in, it might be useful to have a PR firm come in and help put together a way to help solicit this information on a regular basis.  Federation staff will be the ones to massage the content and put it in the form needed. <br>
-Steve asked if there were processes to distilling content on the wiki to put in the main website. This would include the work of the groups, papers being worked on.  Some point it would be nice to have a process to vetting that material to make it public. Carol mentioned that as part of the website redevelopment, guidance is to be drawn up to help determine what the relationship between the content on the wiki and the website should be. <br>
-Chris suggested that we are at a good point to get a definitive date after the winter meeting to move forward.  We need to determine what we will do next.   We are currently at a good point to go into a holding pattern and then really focus on the winter meeting so that we get what we really want out of it in terms of speakers and sessions.  <br>
-We want to put together a meeting that is responsive to what we really want.  We need to be sure we refine what we are looking to accomplish.  Carol urged the members of the Executive Committee to be involved in the Visioneers telecons. <br>
-. Other Business<br>
+Action Items:
-The Partnership Committee held a forum at the summer meeting to understand the community’s interest in changing ESIP types (or eliminating them).  The consensus from the discussion was to keep the ESIP types but to refine their definitions.  The Partnership Committee will develop a proposal for consideration at the January meeting.   <br>
+*Send revised ESIP Type definitions to Executive Committee for review at November telecon.
+*Create a Student Cluster.
-Peter Fox made a motion to end the meeting (seconded by Steve Berrick). The meeting adjourned at 3:10 PM
+. Outreach
+Jim Frew reported on the National Geoinformatics Community (NGC) meeting, attended by him, Rob Raskin and Carol Meyer.   The NGC is based in USGS’ solid Earth community and is trying to form a community around Geoinformatics.  There was a lot of focus on process and governance.  An impromptu opportunity was provided for Jim Frew to offer an overview of the ESIP Federation, which was politely received.  Rob Raskin added that the initiative originated out of GSA a few years ago, with it still not being clear about the direction it will take. Rob Raskin suggested that we offer a solid Earth session at a future meeting
+Action items:
+*Carol Meyer to follow up with key people from the NGC to invite them to the Winter ESIP Federation meeting
+Carol Meyer reported that the AGU Data Management Plan workshop has been approved for the Fall 2010 AGU.
+. Funding Update
+Carol Meyer reported that a new 2-year Cooperative Agreement is in place with NOAA.  She also reported that a small EPA grant in support of the summer 2010 ESIP Federation meeting was recently awarded.
+. Other Business
+There was no other businees.
+Chuck Hutchinson offered a motion to adjourn (seconded by Chris Lenhardt).  Wtihout discussion, the motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 2:57 pm.