https://wiki.esipfed.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Wclenhardt&feedformat=atomEarth Science Information Partners (ESIP) - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T20:17:05ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=20150116_Telecon&diff=4865120150116 Telecon2015-01-16T21:55:54Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Agenda==<br />
# Plans for a software carpentry "train the trainers" session at the Summer Meeting<br />
# Use cases we might like to see this group take on for a summer session (around documentation, variable naming conventions, etc) - this includes using a strict criteria like [http://software.ac.uk/sites/default/files/SSI-SoftwareEvaluationCriteria.pdf SSI's evaluation criteria] or something more informal. <br />
# Future work on a short-course for software best practices specific to ESIP community.<br />
<br />
Call notes<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Next Steps:<br />
# Follow-up conversations with Erin, Visioneers, and Geosoft<br />
# Start wiki pages on:<br />
## [['Top 10' Best Sustainable Software Practices]]<br />
## [[Audiences to Sensitize and Change Software Culture]]<br />
## ??<br />
# [[Develop survey ideas]]</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=20150116_Telecon&diff=4864520150116 Telecon2015-01-16T18:56:44Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>1. Plans for a software carpentry "train the trainers" session at the Summer Meeting<br />
<br />
2. Use cases we might like to see this group take on for a summer session (around documentation, variable naming conventions, etc) - this includes using a strict criteria like [http://software.ac.uk/sites/default/files/SSI-SoftwareEvaluationCriteria.pdf SSI's evaluation criteria] or something more informal. <br />
<br />
3. Future work on a short-course for software best practices specific to ESIP community.</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=20150116_Telecon&diff=4864420150116 Telecon2015-01-16T18:54:31Z<p>Wclenhardt: Created page with "1. Plans for a software carpentry "train the trainers" session at the Summer Meeting 2. Use cases we might like to see this group take on for a summer session (around documen..."</p>
<hr />
<div>1. Plans for a software carpentry "train the trainers" session at the Summer Meeting<br />
<br />
2. Use cases we might like to see this group take on for a summer session (around documentation, variable naming conventions, etc) - this includes using a strict criteria like SSI's evaluation criteria [http://software.ac.uk/sites/default/files/SSI-SoftwareEvaluationCriteria.pdf] or something more informal. <br />
<br />
3. Future work on a short-course for software best practices specific to ESIP community.</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Science_Software/Archived_Software_Science_Events&diff=48643Science Software/Archived Software Science Events2015-01-16T18:51:19Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>* 2015-01-16 Telecon [[20150116 Telecon| Telecon Agenda & Notes]]<br />
* 2014-10-24 Telecon [[20142410 Telecon| Telecon Agenda & Notes]]<br />
* 2014-05-14 Telecon [[20141405 Telecon| Telecon Agenda & Notes]]<br />
* 2014-04-09 Telecon [[20140904 Telecon| Telecon Agenda & Notes]]<br />
* 2014-03-12 Telecon [[20141203 Telecon| Telecon Agenda & Notes]]<br />
<noinclude> <br />
* 2013-10-09 Telecon [[20131009 Telecon| Telecon Notes]]<br />
* 2013-07: Cluster Formed<br />
</noinclude></div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Science_Software&diff=48640Science Software2015-01-16T18:44:14Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Get Involved */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<big><center>'''Welcome to the {{PAGENAME}} Cluster'''</center></big><br />
<br />
The overarching objective of the ESIP Science Software Cluster is to <br />
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" <br />
|- valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"<br />
|bgcolor="lightgreen" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
===[[/Archived Software Science Events|Events and Activities]]===<br />
{{:Science Software/Archived Software Science Events}}<br><br />
[[/Archived Software Science Events|Archive]]<br />
<br />
=== ESIP Meeting Notes ===<br />
2015 [[Winter Meeting]]<br />
<br />
|bgcolor="lightblue" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
===Active Collaborations===<br />
* Software Institutes<br />
** Institute for Sustainable Earth and Environmental Software (ISEES) - http://isees.nceas.ucsb.edu<br />
**Water Science Software Institute (WSSI) - http://waters2i2.org<br />
*Outputs<br />
** WSSSPE 2 Paper [[http://commons.esipfed.org/node/2633]]<br />
** Slides from Winter 2015 meeting [[http://commons.esipfed.org/sites/default/files/LenhardtSoftwareClusterSession.pptx]]<br />
|}<br />
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" <br />
|- valign="top" bgcolor="pink"<br />
|bgcolor="pink" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
===Resources===<br />
*[http://software-carpentry.org Software Carpentry]<br />
*[http://www.software.ac.uk Software Sustainability Institute (UK)]<br />
<br />
===Lit===<br />
*[http://www.mendeley.com/groups/3580621/esip-science-software-cluster/ Mendeley Reading Group on SciSoftware]<br />
<br />
===Blogs we like===<br />
* [http://neverworkintheory.org/ It will never work in theory]<br />
* [http://www.software.ac.uk/blog SSI Blog]<br />
* [http://ropensci.org/blog/ R OpenSci] <br />
* [http://software-carpentry.org/blog/index.html SWC Blog]<br />
* [http://www.third-bit.com/ 3rd bit]<br />
* [http://aosabook.org/blog/ AOSA]<br />
* [http://www.openscience.org/blog/ OpenScience Project]<br />
|bgcolor="#FFFFBB" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
=== Get Involved===<br />
* '''Email List:''' [http://lists.esipfed.org/mailman/subscribe/esip-sciencesoftware ESIP-Science Software]<br />
* '''[[/ScienceSoftware_Telecons|Telecons:]]'''<br />
** 2 ET, Third Friday of each month; <br />
**Phone: 1-877-668-4493<br />
**Meeting Code: 23136782 <br />
* '''Cluster Contacts:''' Chris Lenhardt; Nic Weber<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Backlink}}<br />
[[WS::{{PAGENAMEE}}]][[category:CollabArea]]</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Science_Software&diff=48635Science Software2015-01-15T17:59:01Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Get Involved */</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<big><center>'''Welcome to the {{PAGENAME}} Cluster'''</center></big><br />
<br />
The overarching objective of the ESIP Science Software Cluster is to <br />
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" <br />
|- valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"<br />
|bgcolor="lightgreen" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
===[[/Archived Software Science Events|Events and Activities]]===<br />
{{:Science Software/Archived Software Science Events}}<br><br />
[[/Archived Software Science Events|Archive]]<br />
<br />
=== ESIP Meeting Notes ===<br />
2015 [[Winter Meeting]]<br />
<br />
|bgcolor="lightblue" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
===Active Collaborations===<br />
* Software Institutes<br />
** Institute for Sustainable Earth and Environmental Software (ISEES) - http://isees.nceas.ucsb.edu<br />
**Water Science Software Institute (WSSI) - http://waters2i2.org<br />
*Outputs<br />
** WSSSPE 2 Paper [[http://commons.esipfed.org/node/2633]]<br />
** Slides from Winter 2015 meeting [[http://commons.esipfed.org/sites/default/files/LenhardtSoftwareClusterSession.pptx]]<br />
|}<br />
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" <br />
|- valign="top" bgcolor="pink"<br />
|bgcolor="pink" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
===Resources===<br />
*[http://software-carpentry.org Software Carpentry]<br />
*[http://www.software.ac.uk Software Sustainability Institute (UK)]<br />
<br />
===Lit===<br />
*[http://www.mendeley.com/groups/3580621/esip-science-software-cluster/ Mendeley Reading Group on SciSoftware]<br />
<br />
===Blogs we like===<br />
* [http://neverworkintheory.org/ It will never work in theory]<br />
* [http://www.software.ac.uk/blog SSI Blog]<br />
* [http://ropensci.org/blog/ R OpenSci] <br />
* [http://software-carpentry.org/blog/index.html SWC Blog]<br />
* [http://www.third-bit.com/ 3rd bit]<br />
* [http://aosabook.org/blog/ AOSA]<br />
* [http://www.openscience.org/blog/ OpenScience Project]<br />
|bgcolor="#FFFFBB" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
=== Get Involved===<br />
* '''Email List:''' [http://rtpnet.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-sciencesoftware ESIP-Science Software]<br />
* '''[[/ScienceSoftware_Telecons|Telecons:]]'''<br />
** 1 ET, Third Friday of each month; <br />
**Phone: 1-877-668-4493<br />
**Meeting Code: 23136782 <br />
* '''Cluster Contacts:''' Chris Lenhardt; Nic Weber<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Backlink}}<br />
[[WS::{{PAGENAMEE}}]][[category:CollabArea]]</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Telecon_04.08.14_materials&diff=46404Telecon 04.08.14 materials2014-04-11T15:33:43Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>Below is a strawman set of slides/talking points based on our conversation today.<br />
<br />
(Our manifesto that was presented to the BRDI is here: http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/File:BRDI_draft_03.11.14.docx.)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: Our recommendation'''<br />
<br />
In our ''manifesto'' presented to the BRDI we wrote:<br />
<br />
"These challenges are potential opportunities to achieve progress in science, innovation, the economy, and broader society. To actually capture the value of our data, the Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP Federation or ESIP) calls upon the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a study to determine strategic priorities for the scientific data enterprise. NRC surveys are considered the gold standard for advice on research programming [DSSS 2007] and offer an authoritative and unbiased assessment for strategic scientific investments. This study would inform and guide decision makers in the government, academia, and industry in helping to improve their practices and priorities for managing scientific data, giving the U.S. a boost in all impacted arenas.<br />
<br />
This study should:<br />
*Synthesize and analyze prior work in data management/infrastructure, such as, what was successful, what was not successful, and why has this not been sufficient?<br />
*Take a broad perspective of the value of the scientific data enterprise and the infrastructure that supports it from the perspectives of societal benefit, economic competitiveness, and other important values<br />
*Provide a vision of what might be, then prioritize with conclusions and recommendations."<br />
<br />
[What should we actually put here? I'm uncomfortable with this section. If we keep this entire quotation I'm afraid we'll get down in the weeds with this. -Anne]<br />
<br />
[Noting Paul's comment about lack of convergence of these 3 points, the write up, and the title. I see that also. Any thoughts? -Anne]<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: We heard these issues from the BRDI'''<br />
<br />
* How would this study be different from past reports? Why would it be any more successful?<br />
<br />
* The linkage between scientific data and national interests is weak<br />
<br />
* The audience - who wants it? who would lisiten? who would pay?<br />
<br />
* A high level committee is difficult to achieve and would be very expensive <br />
<br />
* With respect to the draft, the title was not descriptive of the content<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: How would this study be different from past reports? Why would it be any more successful?'''<br />
<br />
*Will build on previous studies; synthesize existing, but go beyond<br />
*We argue prior studies reflect the stove-piped nature of how these problems have been addressed; not holistic in their approach<br />
*Focuses on '''''cross''''' domain and agency interoperability needed to address problems of societal interest<br />
*Argue we need a big[ger] leap, as incremental changes are not sufficiently meeting our needs<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: The linkage between scientific data and national interests is weak'''<br />
<br />
*Pressing major societal challenges need to be addressed by transdisciplilnary science<br />
**Think climate change adaptation and resilience<br />
**Think understanding the linkages between the human genome and health<br />
**Think providing food for a world of 9 billion w/o using any more land, water, or energy than we currently do <br />
*These are cross cutting problems that span domains and agencies<br />
**Need to facilitate data interoperability across a variety of scales and across varied science domains<br />
**Need to solve the science data value add problem, i.e. metadata and semantic meaning<br />
**Need to facilitate longitudinal, cross disciplinary studies<br />
**Need to figure out alternatives to moving data around the network<br />
**[Data security]<br />
*We need a national, '''cross-agency''', robust scientific data infrastructure, but lack the capabilities to support that<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: The audience - who wants it? who would listen? who would pay?'''<br />
<br />
*Researchers need help<br />
**The 80/20 rule - 80% of the resources spent in data management, 20% on science<br />
**Many scientists report not using a data set because it was too hard to access or understand [cite EarthCube studies]<br />
**Can also point to EarthCube domain workshops which show the science drivers are fundamentally cross-domain<br />
***i.e. the sedimentary folks need to interact with the hydrologists and the paleogeologists and the biologists and the crustal dynamics, etc.<br />
<br />
*Agencies need help<br />
**Agencies need the impetus and political cover to work in a more coordinated way<br />
**Agencies are continually being asked to manage more data with less funding<br />
**Funding is not sustained or reliable<br />
**Funding almost inherently promotes stovepipes<br />
<br />
*"OSTP is already working on open data"<br />
**Validates one point of our argument<br />
**Our scope also includes: discovery, understandability, citation, transparency, <br />
**Changing of administrations means possibility exists that that effort would tabled<br />
**But need to push a more comprehensive vision of how to approach the problem<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: A high level committee is difficult to achieve and would be very expensive'''<br />
<br />
* The ROI in investing in data science may be very high<br />
** Jisc has just published the synthesis report of the value & impact studies of Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS), the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), and the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC) has just published the synthesis report of the value & impact studies of Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS), the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), and the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC), http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/5568/1/iDF308_-_Digital_Infrastructure_Directions_Report%2C_Jan14_v1-04.pdf<br />
*** Quantitative analysis Results<br />
**** The value to users exceeds the investment made in data sharing and curation via the centres in all three cases – with the benefits from 2.2 to 2.7 times the costs;<br />
**** Very significant increases in work efficiency are realised by users as a result of their use of the data centres – with efficiency gains from 2 to 20 times the costs; and<br />
**** By facilitating additional use, the data centres significantly increase the returns on investment in the creation/collection of the data hosted – with increases in returns from 2 to 12 times the costs.<br />
*** Qualitative analysis Results<br />
**** Academic users report that the centres are very or extremely important for their research. Between 53% and 61% of respondents across the three surveys reported that it would have a major or severe impact on their work if they could not access the data and services; and<br />
**** For depositors, having the data preserved for the long-term and its dissemination being targeted to the academic community are seen as the most beneficial aspects of depositing data with the centres.<br />
*** "An important aim of the studies was to contribute to the further development of impact evaluation methods that can provide estimates of the value and benefits of research data sharing and curation infrastructure investments. This synthesis reflects on lessons learnt and provides a set of recommendations that could help develop future studies of this type."<br />
** 2013 study of generative economic and social value of Open Government Data lists technical connectivity as a key enable for OGD value generated [ECIS 2013]<br />
** Thus, it might make financial sense to invest the resources<br />
<br />
*Cost of inaction<br />
**Unrealized generative value of data - the “capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences” [Wilbanks, 2010]<br />
**Lack of access to dark data, knowledge of data known only to select few, "“information is available only to a small set of people and they can pervert the process." [IBE (Wilbanks) 2012]<br />
**Failure to act impinges on national interest, including: <br />
***US' ability to respond to natural and manmade disasters; i.e. resilience and sustainability<br />
***Impinges on our scientific competitiveness (e.g. Chinese are projected to outpace the world in genome science/technology)<br />
***Data [science] literate workforce<br />
***Slows innovation and economic development<br />
<br />
*Besides expense, why is it difficult to achieve such a committee? Are there points we can address there?<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: With respect to the draft, the title was not descriptive of the content'''<br />
<br />
*We welcome working with BRDI to fine-tune this<br />
*We have some additional ideas, but we would like to reach a final consensus on the drivers and study approach<br />
*This also ties back to determining the audience<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: Next steps?'''<br />
*Would like to work closely with BRDI on developing and realizing the vision; BRDI support is critical<br />
*Help us to fine-tune the message; partner going forward<br />
*Would be beneficial to find some small funding to support a student to do some synthesis research looking at prior studies<br />
*Finalize our workshop white paper</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Telecon_04.08.14_materials&diff=46401Telecon 04.08.14 materials2014-04-11T13:48:56Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>Below is a strawman set of slides/talking points based on our conversation today.<br />
<br />
(Our manifesto that was presented to the BRDI is here: http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/File:BRDI_draft_03.11.14.docx.)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: Our recommendation'''<br />
<br />
In our ''manifesto'' presented to the BRDI we wrote:<br />
<br />
"These challenges are potential opportunities to achieve progress in science, innovation, the economy, and broader society. To actually capture the value of our data, the Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP Federation or ESIP) calls upon the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a study to determine strategic priorities for the scientific data enterprise. NRC surveys are considered the gold standard for advice on research programming [DSSS 2007] and offer an authoritative and unbiased assessment for strategic scientific investments. This study would inform and guide decision makers in the government, academia, and industry in helping to improve their practices and priorities for managing scientific data, giving the U.S. a boost in all impacted arenas.<br />
<br />
This study should:<br />
*Synthesize and analyze prior work in data management/infrastructure, such as, what was successful, what was not successful, and why has this not been sufficient?<br />
*Take a broad perspective of the value of the scientific data enterprise and the infrastructure that supports it from the perspectives of societal benefit, economic competitiveness, and other important values<br />
*Provide a vision of what might be, then prioritize with conclusions and recommendations."<br />
<br />
[What should we actually put here? I'm uncomfortable with this section. If we keep this entire quotation I'm afraid we'll get down in the weeds with this. -Anne]<br />
<br />
[Noting Paul's comment about lack of convergence of these 3 points, the write up, and the title. I see that also. Any thoughts? -Anne]<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: We heard these issues from the BRDI'''<br />
<br />
* How would this study be different from past reports? Why would it be any more successful?<br />
<br />
* The linkage between scientific data and national interests is weak<br />
<br />
* The audience - who wants it? who would lisiten? who would pay?<br />
<br />
* A high level committee is difficult to achieve and would be very expensive <br />
<br />
* With respect to the draft, the title was not descriptive of the content<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: How would this study be different from past reports? Why would it be any more successful?'''<br />
<br />
*Will build on previous studies; synthesize existing, but go beyond<br />
*We argue prior studies reflect the stove-piped nature of how these problems have been addressed; not holistic in their approach<br />
*Focuses on '''''cross''''' domain and agency interoperability needed to address problems of societal interest<br />
*Argue we need a big[ger] leap, as incremental changes are not sufficiently meeting our needs<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: The linkage between scientific data and national interests is weak'''<br />
<br />
*Pressing major societal challenges need to be addressed by transdisciplilnary science<br />
**Think climate change adaptation and resilience<br />
**Think understanding the linkages between the human genome and health<br />
**Think providing food for a world of 9 billion w/o using any more land, water, or energy than we currently do <br />
*These are cross cutting problems that span domains and agencies<br />
**Need to facilitate data interoperability across a variety of scales and across varied science domains<br />
**Need to solve the science data value add problem, i.e. metadata and semantic meaning<br />
**Need to facilitate longitudinal, cross disciplinary studies<br />
**Need to figure out alternatives to moving data around the network<br />
**[Data security]<br />
*We need a national, '''cross-agency''', robust scientific data infrastructure, but lack the capabilities to support that<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: The audience - who wants it? who would listen? who would pay?'''<br />
<br />
*Researchers need help<br />
**The 80/20 rule - 80% of the resources spent in data management, 20% on science<br />
**Many scientists report not using a data set because it was too hard to access or understand [cite EarthCube studies]<br />
**Can also point to EarthCube domain workshops which show the science drivers are fundamentally cross-domain<br />
***i.e. the sedimentary folks need to interact with the hydrologists and the paleogeologists and the biologists and the crustal dynamics, etc.<br />
<br />
*Agencies need help<br />
**Agencies need the impetus and political cover to work in a more coordinated way<br />
**Agencies are continually being asked to manage more data with less funding<br />
**Funding is not sustained or reliable<br />
**Funding almost inherently promotes stovepipes<br />
<br />
*"OSTP is already working on open data"<br />
**Validates one point of our argument<br />
**Our scope also includes: discovery, understandability, citation, transparency, <br />
**Changing of administrations means possibility exists that that effort would tabled<br />
**But need to push a more comprehensive vision of how to approach the problem<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: A high level committee is difficult to achieve and would be very expensive'''<br />
<br />
* The ROI in investing in data science may be very high<br />
** Jisc has just published the synthesis report of the value & impact studies of Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS), the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), and the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC) has just published the synthesis report of the value & impact studies of Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS), the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), and the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC), http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/5568/1/iDF308_-_Digital_Infrastructure_Directions_Report%2C_Jan14_v1-04.pdf<br />
*** Quantitative analysis Results<br />
**** The value to users exceeds the investment made in data sharing and curation via the centres in all three cases – with the benefits from 2.2 to 2.7 times the costs;<br />
**** Very significant increases in work efficiency are realised by users as a result of their use of the data centres – with efficiency gains from 2 to 20 times the costs; and<br />
**** By facilitating additional use, the data centres significantly increase the returns on investment in the creation/collection of the data hosted – with increases in returns from 2 to 12 times the costs.<br />
*** Qualitative analysis Results<br />
**** Academic users report that the centres are very or extremely important for their research. Between 53% and 61% of respondents across the three surveys reported that it would have a major or severe impact on their work if they could not access the data and services; and<br />
**** For depositors, having the data preserved for the long-term and its dissemination being targeted to the academic community are seen as the most beneficial aspects of depositing data with the centres.<br />
*** "An important aim of the studies was to contribute to the further development of impact evaluation methods that can provide estimates of the value and benefits of research data sharing and curation infrastructure investments. This synthesis reflects on lessons learnt and provides a set of recommendations that could help develop future studies of this type."<br />
** 2013 study of generative economic and social value of Open Government Data lists technical connectivity as a key enable for OGD value generated [ECIS 2013]<br />
** Thus, it might make financial sense to invest the resources<br />
<br />
*Cost of inaction<br />
**Unrealized generative value of data - the “capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences” [Wilbanks, 2010]<br />
**Lack of access to dark data, knowledge of data known only to select few, "“information is available only to a small set of people and they can pervert the process." [IBE (Wilbanks) 2012]<br />
**Failure to act impinges on national interest, including: <br />
***US' ability to respond to natural and manmade disasters; i.e. resilience and sustainability<br />
***Impinges on our scientific competitiveness (e.g. Chinese are projected to outpace the world in genome science/technology)<br />
***Data [science] literate workforce<br />
***Slows innovation and economic development<br />
<br />
*Besides expense, why is it difficult to achieve such a committee? Are there points we can address there?<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: With respect to the draft, the title was not descriptive of the content'''<br />
<br />
We struggle with a brief but meaningful description.<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: Next steps?'''<br />
*Would like to work closely with BRDI on developing and realizing the vision; BRDI support is critical<br />
*Help us to fine-tune the message; partner going forward<br />
*Would be beneficial to find some small funding to support a student to do some synthesis research looking at prior studies<br />
*Finalize our workshop white paper</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Telecon_04.08.14_materials&diff=46388Telecon 04.08.14 materials2014-04-10T19:08:32Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>Below is a strawman set of slides/talking points based on our conversation today.<br />
<br />
(Our manifesto that was presented to the BRDI is here: http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/File:BRDI_draft_03.11.14.docx.)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: Our recommendation'''<br />
<br />
In our ''manifesto'' presented to the BRDI we wrote:<br />
<br />
"These challenges are potential opportunities to achieve progress in science, innovation, the economy, and broader society. To actually capture the value of our data, the Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP Federation or ESIP) calls upon the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a study to determine strategic priorities for the scientific data enterprise. NRC surveys are considered the gold standard for advice on research programming [DSSS 2007] and offer an authoritative and unbiased assessment for strategic scientific investments. This study would inform and guide decision makers in the government, academia, and industry in helping to improve their practices and priorities for managing scientific data, giving the U.S. a boost in all impacted arenas.<br />
<br />
This study should:<br />
*Synthesize and analyze prior work in data management/infrastructure, such as, what was successful, what was not successful, and why has this not been sufficient?<br />
*Take a broad perspective of the value of the scientific data enterprise and the infrastructure that supports it from the perspectives of societal benefit, economic competitiveness, and other important values<br />
*Provide a vision of what might be, then prioritize with conclusions and recommendations."<br />
<br />
[What should we actually put here? I'm uncomfortable with this section. If we keep this entire quotation I'm afraid we'll get down in the weeds with this. -Anne]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: We heard these issues from the BRDI'''<br />
<br />
1) How would this study be different from past reports? Why would it be any more successful?<br />
<br />
2) The linkage between scientific data and national interests is weak<br />
<br />
3) The audience - who wants it? who would lisiten? who would pay?<br />
<br />
4) With respect to the draft, the title was not descriptive of the content<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: How would this study be different from past reports? Why would it be any more successful?'''<br />
<br />
*Will build on previous studies; synthesize existing, but go beyond<br />
*Focuses on cross domain and agency interoperability needed to address problems of societal interest<br />
*Argue we need a big[ger] leap, as incremental changes are not sufficiently meeting our needs<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: The linkage between scientific data and national interests is weak'''<br />
<br />
*Major societal challenges need to be addressed by transdisciplilnary science<br />
**Think climate change adaptation and resilience<br />
**Think understanding the linkages between the human genome and health<br />
**Think providing food for a world of 9 billion w/o using any more land, water, or energy than we currently do <br />
*These are cross cutting problems that span domains and agencies<br />
**Need to facilitate data interoperability across a variety of scales and across varied science domains<br />
**Need to facilitate longitudinal, cross disciplinary studies<br />
*Scientific data provide: jobs, ROI, good economic sense<br />
*We need a national, cross-agency, robust scientific data infrastructure, but lack the capabilities to support that<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: The audience - who wants it? who would listen? who would pay?'''<br />
<br />
*Researchers need help<br />
**The 80/20 rule - 80% of the resources spent in data management, 20% on science<br />
**Many scientists report not using a data set because it was too hard to access or understand [cite EarthCube studies]<br />
**Can also point to EarthCube domain workshops which show the science drivers are fundamentally cross-domain<br />
***i.e. the sedimentary folks need to interact with the hydrologists and the paleogeologists and the biologists and the crustal dynamics, etc.<br />
<br />
*Agencies need help<br />
**Agencies are continually being asked to manage more data with less funding<br />
**Funding is not sustained or reliable<br />
**Funding almost inherently promotes stovepipes<br />
<br />
*"OSTP is already working on open data"<br />
**Validates one point of our argument<br />
**Our scope also includes: discovery, understandability, citation, transparency, <br />
**Changing of administrations means possibility exists that that effort would tabled<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: With respect to the draft, the title was not descriptive of the content'''<br />
<br />
We struggle with a brief but meaningful description.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: Next steps?'''<br />
<br />
??</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Telecon_04.08.14_materials&diff=46387Telecon 04.08.14 materials2014-04-10T18:55:09Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>Below is a strawman set of slides/talking points based on our conversation today.<br />
<br />
(Our manifesto that was presented to the BRDI is here: http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/File:BRDI_draft_03.11.14.docx.)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: Our recommendation'''<br />
<br />
In our ''manifesto'' presented to the BRDI we wrote:<br />
<br />
"These challenges are potential opportunities to achieve progress in science, innovation, the economy, and broader society. To actually capture the value of our data, the Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP Federation or ESIP) calls upon the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a study to determine strategic priorities for the scientific data enterprise. NRC surveys are considered the gold standard for advice on research programming [DSSS 2007] and offer an authoritative and unbiased assessment for strategic scientific investments. This study would inform and guide decision makers in the government, academia, and industry in helping to improve their practices and priorities for managing scientific data, giving the U.S. a boost in all impacted arenas.<br />
<br />
This study should:<br />
*Synthesize and analyze prior work in data management/infrastructure, such as, what was successful, what was not successful, and why has this not been sufficient?<br />
*Take a broad perspective of the value of the scientific data enterprise and the infrastructure that supports it from the perspectives of societal benefit, economic competitiveness, and other important values<br />
*Provide a vision of what might be, then prioritize with conclusions and recommendations."<br />
<br />
[What should we actually put here? I'm uncomfortable with this section. If we keep this entire quotation I'm afraid we'll get down in the weeds with this. -Anne]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: We heard these issues from the BRDI'''<br />
<br />
1) How would this study be different from past reports? Why would it be any more successful?<br />
<br />
2) The linkage between scientific data and national interests is weak<br />
<br />
3) The audience - who wants it? who would lisiten? who would pay?<br />
<br />
4) With respect to the draft, the title was not descriptive of the content<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: How would this study be different from past reports? Why would it be any more successful?'''<br />
<br />
*Will build on previous studies; synthesize existing, but go beyond<br />
*Focuses on cross domain and agency interoperability needed to address problems of societal interest<br />
*Argue we need a big[ger] leap, as incremental changes are not sufficiently meeting our needs<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: The linkage between scientific data and national interests is weak'''<br />
<br />
*Scientific data are used in: science, economics, disaster response, climate change planning, <br />
**These are cross cutting problems that span domains and agencies<br />
**Need to facilitate longitudinal, cross disciplinary studies<br />
*Scientific data provide: jobs, ROI, good economic sense<br />
<br />
*We need a national, robust scientific data infrastructure, but lack the capabilities to support that<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: The audience - who wants it? who would listen? who would pay?'''<br />
<br />
*Researchers need help<br />
**The 80/20 rule - 80% of the resources spent in data management, 20% on science<br />
**Many scientists report not using a data set because it was too hard to access or understand<br />
<br />
*Agencies need help<br />
**Agencies are continually being asked to manage more data with less funding<br />
**Funding is not sustained or reliable<br />
<br />
*"OSTP is already working on open data"<br />
**Validates one point of our argument<br />
**Our scope also includes: discovery, understandability, citation, transparency, <br />
**Changing of administrations means possibility exists that that effort would tabled<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: With respect to the draft, the title was not descriptive of the content'''<br />
<br />
We struggle with a brief but meaningful description.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''SLIDE: Next steps?'''<br />
<br />
??</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Forum_planning&diff=45172Community Forum planning2013-12-07T14:34:46Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Part 1, purpose for this Community Forum */</p>
<hr />
<div>As the workshop in January will be closed, in order to get community input we will create a place on the web, which we are calling the Community Forum.<br />
<br />
Forum goals: inform the community, gather input.<br />
<br />
==Part 1, purpose for this Community Forum==<br />
The purpose of this forum is to incorporate input from the ESIP community to help guide the recommendations that will be made to the National Academy Board on Research Data and Information (BRDI) in relation to a call for a science data enterprise study. In addition, this Forum exists in order to inform our community of these efforts. Please consider the questions below and let us know what you think!<br />
<br />
ESIP and representatives from the BRDI have been discussing the possibility of a NRC study to develop a unifying vision to guide the development of cohesive, effective strategies and policies to address the data grand challenges that span domains and organizations. In July 2013, a plenary discussion at the Summer ESIP meeting brought these issues into focus as panelists considered the need and feasibility of establishing a NRC study on data developments, management, and stewardship in the Earth sciences realm. In January ESIP will be holding a workshop of invited participants to help elucidate the vision.<br />
<br />
Our goal is to provide a set of recommendations to the NRC regarding the scope and conduct of the study. A more complete discussion of the idea is presented in an article submitted to AGU EOS: http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/2/2f/EOSPaper_Forum.docx. If this study is conducted and is successful, it is possible that future studies would follow and the endeavor could become evolutionary.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Current Events=== <br />
'''Events at AGU'''<br />
<br />
Town Hall Monday, 12/9:<br />
TH15F. TH15F. '''Connecting Data Stakeholders for a Long-term Vision of Data Stewardship''' <br />
6:15 PM - 7:15 PM; 306 (Moscone South)<br />
<br />
Presentation Friday, 12/13:<br />
IN51D-08. '''Establishing Long Term Data Management Research Priorities via a Data Decadal Survey''' 9:45 - 10:00 AM; 2020 (Moscone West)<br />
<br />
== Part 2, Questions for the community ==<br />
*Thinking 5 years down the road, what trends will impact the way your agency collects, manages, stewards and uses Earth science data?<br />
*What trends or technologies will have the biggest impact?<br />
*How will your agency respond to these trends? What will be constant? What will have to change?<br />
*Is there an aspect of your job that keeps you up at night? What would make your job easier?<br />
*What is your vision for the future regarding scientific data? Please be bold and include fanciful, idealistic, lofty, and even utopian ideas.<br />
*Do you think an NRC study would be useful and worthwhile? Why?<br />
*If so, what do you think should be the scope of the study? How can we avoid a study that is so extreme in either depth or breadth that it is not useful?<br />
*Should the study be limited to Earth and Space Science only or should it be broader to include, say, biomedical, physical, and social sciences? If broad, how broad? <br />
*Does it make sense to focus the study at a low level, focusing on details in scientific domains of limited scope and then generalize? Or, as data management problems across domains have some similar characteristics, should we start with the a broad perspective and descend into greater detail later?<br />
*Should the study also consider software and methodologies involved in data creation?<br />
*Any other comments?<br />
<br />
<br />
<html><iframe src="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/15qvn7M1anl-6pBgY9HVkJgoWXnMVF3P9vn1cvggdNts/viewform?embedded=true" width="760" height="500" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0">Loading...</iframe></html><br />
<br />
=== Results === <br />
<html><iframe width='500' height='300' frameborder='0' src='https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0ArDAFB2BsbfRdHBWM053N3RabzhJSHJUZ2t0WGl6LVE&output=html&widget=true'></iframe></html></div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Forum_planning&diff=45171Community Forum planning2013-12-07T14:32:30Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Part 1, purpose for this Community Forum */</p>
<hr />
<div>As the workshop in January will be closed, in order to get community input we will create a place on the web, which we are calling the Community Forum.<br />
<br />
Forum goals: inform the community, gather input.<br />
<br />
==Part 1, purpose for this Community Forum==<br />
The purpose of this forum is to incorporate input from the ESIP community to help guide the recommendations that will be made to the National Academy Board on Research Data and Information (BRDI) in relation to a call for a science data enterprise study. In addition, this Forum exists in order to inform our community of these efforts. Please consider the questions below and let us know what you think!<br />
<br />
ESIP and representatives from the BRDI have been discussing the possibility of a NRC study to develop a unifying vision to guide the development of cohesive, effective strategies and policies and address the data grand challenges that span domains and organizations. In July 2013, a plenary discussion at the Summer ESIP meeting brought these issues into focus as panelists considered the need and feasibility of establishing a NRC study on data developments, management, and stewardship in the Earth sciences realm. In January ESIP will be holding a workshop of invited participants to help elucidate the vision.<br />
<br />
Our goal is to provide a set of recommendations to the NRC regarding the scope and conduct of the study. A more complete discussion of the idea is presented in this article that was submitted to AGU EOS: http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/2/2f/EOSPaper_Forum.docx. If this study is conducted and is successful, it is possible that future studies would follow and the endeavor could become evolutionary.<br />
<br />
The amount of scientific data gathered and created is growing exponentially. The landscape of tools for analyzing and sharing data is evolving rapidly. Many trends are impacting scientific culture and leading to fundamental shifts in the practice of science, presenting both great opportunities and great challenges. <br />
<br />
===Current Events=== <br />
'''Events at AGU'''<br />
<br />
Town Hall Monday, 12/9:<br />
TH15F. TH15F. '''Connecting Data Stakeholders for a Long-term Vision of Data Stewardship''' <br />
6:15 PM - 7:15 PM; 306 (Moscone South)<br />
<br />
Presentation Friday, 12/13:<br />
IN51D-08. '''Establishing Long Term Data Management Research Priorities via a Data Decadal Survey''' 9:45 - 10:00 AM; 2020 (Moscone West)<br />
<br />
== Part 2, Questions for the community ==<br />
*Thinking 5 years down the road, what trends will impact the way your agency collects, manages, stewards and uses Earth science data?<br />
*What trends or technologies will have the biggest impact?<br />
*How will your agency respond to these trends? What will be constant? What will have to change?<br />
*Is there an aspect of your job that keeps you up at night? What would make your job easier?<br />
*What is your vision for the future regarding scientific data? Please be bold and include fanciful, idealistic, lofty, and even utopian ideas.<br />
*Do you think an NRC study would be useful and worthwhile? Why?<br />
*If so, what do you think should be the scope of the study? How can we avoid a study that is so extreme in either depth or breadth that it is not useful?<br />
*Should the study be limited to Earth and Space Science only or should it be broader to include, say, biomedical, physical, and social sciences? If broad, how broad? <br />
*Does it make sense to focus the study at a low level, focusing on details in scientific domains of limited scope and then generalize? Or, as data management problems across domains have some similar characteristics, should we start with the a broad perspective and descend into greater detail later?<br />
*Should the study also consider software and methodologies involved in data creation?<br />
*Any other comments?<br />
<br />
<br />
<html><iframe src="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/15qvn7M1anl-6pBgY9HVkJgoWXnMVF3P9vn1cvggdNts/viewform?embedded=true" width="760" height="500" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0">Loading...</iframe></html><br />
<br />
=== Results === <br />
<html><iframe width='500' height='300' frameborder='0' src='https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0ArDAFB2BsbfRdHBWM053N3RabzhJSHJUZ2t0WGl6LVE&output=html&widget=true'></iframe></html></div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Forum_planning&diff=45170Community Forum planning2013-12-07T14:24:16Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Part 1, purpose for this Community Forum */</p>
<hr />
<div>As the workshop in January will be closed, in order to get community input we will create a place on the web, which we are calling the Community Forum.<br />
<br />
Forum goals: inform the community, gather input.<br />
<br />
==Part 1, purpose for this Community Forum==<br />
The purpose of this forum is to incorporate input from the ESIP community to help guide the recommendations that will be made to the National Academy Board on Research Data and Information (BRDI). This Forum exists in order to inform our community of these efforts. We also need to hear from the community in order incorporate community input into our recommendations. Please consider the questions below and let us know what you think!<br />
<br />
<br />
The amount of scientific data gathered and created is growing exponentially. The landscape of tools for analyzing and sharing data is evolving rapidly. Many trends are impacting scientific culture and leading to fundamental shifts in the practice of science, presenting both great opportunities and great challenges. <br />
<br />
As data are the foundation of science, a unifying vision is needed to guide the development of cohesive, effective strategies and policies and address the data grand challenges that span domains and organizations.<br />
<br />
The National Academies of Sciences is a private, non-profit organization created by law in 1863 to provide independent advice on science, engineering, technology and health. The National Research Council (NRC) is the "operating arm" of the NAS that conducts studies and writes expert reports at the request of federal government agencies or other sponsors seeking answers to a set of questions. Study sponsors use the result to guide them in their decision making.<br />
<br />
ESIP and representatives from the National Research Council (NRC) Board on Research Data and Information (BRDI) have been discussing the possibility of a NRC study to accomplish that convergence for the science data enterprise. In July 2013, a plenary discussion at the Summer ESIP meeting brought these issues into focus as panelists considered the need and feasibility of establishing a NRC study on data developments, management, and stewardship in the Earth sciences realm. In January ESIP will be holding a workshop of invited participants to discuss the matter further.<br />
<br />
Our goal is provide a set of recommendations to the NRC regarding the scope and conduct of the study. A more complete discussion of the idea is presented in this article that was submitted to AGU EOS: http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/2/2f/EOSPaper_Forum.docx. If this study is conducted and is successful, it is possible that future studies would follow and the endeavor could become evolutionary.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Current Events=== <br />
'''Events at AGU'''<br />
<br />
Town Hall Monday, 12/9:<br />
TH15F. TH15F. '''Connecting Data Stakeholders for a Long-term Vision of Data Stewardship''' <br />
6:15 PM - 7:15 PM; 306 (Moscone South)<br />
<br />
Presentation Friday, 12/13:<br />
IN51D-08. '''Establishing Long Term Data Management Research Priorities via a Data Decadal Survey''' 9:45 - 10:00 AM; 2020 (Moscone West)<br />
<br />
== Part 2, Questions for the community ==<br />
*Thinking 5 years down the road, what trends will impact the way your agency collects, manages, stewards and uses Earth science data?<br />
*What trends or technologies will have the biggest impact?<br />
*How will your agency respond to these trends? What will be constant? What will have to change?<br />
*Is there an aspect of your job that keeps you up at night? What would make your job easier?<br />
*What is your vision for the future regarding scientific data? Please be bold and include fanciful, idealistic, lofty, and even utopian ideas.<br />
*Do you think an NRC study would be useful and worthwhile? Why?<br />
*If so, what do you think should be the scope of the study? How can we avoid a study that is so extreme in either depth or breadth that it is not useful?<br />
*Should the study be limited to Earth and Space Science only or should it be broader to include, say, biomedical, physical, and social sciences? If broad, how broad? <br />
*Does it make sense to focus the study at a low level, focusing on details in scientific domains of limited scope and then generalize? Or, as data management problems across domains have some similar characteristics, should we start with the a broad perspective and descend into greater detail later?<br />
*Should the study also consider software and methodologies involved in data creation?<br />
*Any other comments?<br />
<br />
<br />
<html><iframe src="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/15qvn7M1anl-6pBgY9HVkJgoWXnMVF3P9vn1cvggdNts/viewform?embedded=true" width="760" height="500" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0">Loading...</iframe></html><br />
<br />
=== Results === <br />
<html><iframe width='500' height='300' frameborder='0' src='https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0ArDAFB2BsbfRdHBWM053N3RabzhJSHJUZ2t0WGl6LVE&output=html&widget=true'></iframe></html></div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=20131009_Telecon&diff=4483120131009 Telecon2013-10-09T20:12:08Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>Agenda<br />
<br />
*Upcoming Events and Activities<br />
**SuperComputing13 - November 2013 (Denver)<br />
***First Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE), (to held in conjunction with SC13, room 503, Sunday, 17 November 2013, Denver, CO, USA)<br />
****http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk<br />
**AGU - December 2013 (San Francisco)<br />
***IN015 - IN015. Enabling Better Science Through Improving Science Software Development Culture (Tues?)<br />
***Poster Session - Tues?<br />
***Informal BoF Session<br />
***Ignite Talk??<br />
**2014 Winter ESIP Meeting (DC)<br />
*Planning for Winter Meeting<br />
**Plenary speakers?<br />
***Victoria Stodden, http://www.stanford.edu/~vcs/<br />
**Technical Session co-organized by ISEES and WSSI<br />
**Invite Software Carpentry folks<br />
**Working Session (see cluster Deliverables)<br />
*Cluster Deliverable(s)<br />
**Science Software Best Practices?<br />
***Develop an [[Science Software Best Practices| Outline]]<br />
***Focus on providing access to existing knowledge, e.g. IEEE Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK)<br />
***Provide a high level primer or intro<br />
***Training, Workshops, and Tutorials<br />
***Range of Software<br />
***Range of folks writing code<br />
***Mobile App Development<br />
<br />
Next Steps<br />
*Next telecon, 13 November 2013, 3 pm Eastern<br />
**Invite Open Source and IT&I groups to participate<br />
**Work on planning for winter meeting</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=20131009_Telecon&diff=4483020131009 Telecon2013-10-09T20:11:22Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>Agenda<br />
<br />
*Upcoming Events and Activities<br />
**SuperComputing13 - November 2013 (Denver)<br />
***First Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE), (to held in conjunction with SC13, room 503, Sunday, 17 November 2013, Denver, CO, USA)<br />
****http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk<br />
**AGU - December 2013 (San Francisco)<br />
***IN015 - IN015. Enabling Better Science Through Improving Science Software Development Culture (Tues?)<br />
***Poster Session - Tues?<br />
***Informal BoF Session<br />
***Ignite Talk??<br />
**2014 Winter ESIP Meeting (DC)<br />
*Planning for Winter Meeting<br />
**Plenary speakers?<br />
***Victoria Stodden, http://www.stanford.edu/~vcs/<br />
**Technical Session co-organized by ISEES and WSSI<br />
**Invite Software Carpentry folks<br />
**Working Session (see cluster Deliverables)<br />
*Cluster Deliverable(s)<br />
**Science Software Best Practices?<br />
***Develop an [[Science Software Best Practices| Outline]]<br />
***Focus on providing access to existing knowledge, e.g. IEEE Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK)<br />
***Provide a high level primer or intro<br />
***Training, Workshops, and Tutorials<br />
***Range of Software<br />
***Range of folks writing code<br />
***Mobile App Development<br />
*Next Steps<br />
**Next telecon, 13 November 2013, 3 pm Eastern<br />
***Invite Open Source and IT&I groups to participate<br />
***</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=20131009_Telecon&diff=4482420131009 Telecon2013-10-09T18:40:13Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>Agenda<br />
<br />
*Upcoming Events and Activities<br />
**SuperComputing13 - November 2013 (Denver)<br />
***First Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE), (to held in conjunction with SC13, room 503, Sunday, 17 November 2013, Denver, CO, USA)<br />
****http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk<br />
**AGU - December 2013 (San Francisco)<br />
***IN015 - IN015. Enabling Better Science Through Improving Science Software Development Culture (Tues?)<br />
***Poster Session - Tues?<br />
***Informal BoF Session<br />
**2014 Winter ESIP Meeting (DC)<br />
*Planning for Winter Meeting<br />
*Cluster Deliverable(s)<br />
**Science Software Best Practices?<br />
***Develop an [[Science Software Best Practices| Outline]]</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=20131009_Telecon&diff=4482320131009 Telecon2013-10-09T18:38:55Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>Agenda<br />
<br />
*Upcoming Events and Activities<br />
**SuperComputing13 - November 2013<br />
***First Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE), (to held in conjunction with SC13, room 503, Sunday, 17 November 2013, Denver, CO, USA)<br />
****http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk<br />
**AGU - December 2013<br />
***IN015 - IN015. Enabling Better Science Through Improving Science Software Development Culture (Tues?)<br />
***Poster Session - Tues?<br />
***Informal BoF Session<br />
**2014 Winter ESIP Meeting<br />
*Planning for Winter Meeting<br />
*Cluster Deliverable(s)<br />
**Science Software Best Practices?<br />
***Develop an [[Science Software Best Practices| Outline]]</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=20131009_Telecon&diff=4482220131009 Telecon2013-10-09T18:16:23Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>Agenda<br />
<br />
*Upcoming Events and Activities<br />
**SuperComputing13 - November 2013<br />
***First Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE), (to held in conjunction with SC13, room 503, Sunday, 17 November 2013, Denver, CO, USA)<br />
****http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk<br />
**AGU - December 2013<br />
****IN015 - Tues?<br />
****Poster Session - Tues?<br />
****Informal BoF Session<br />
**2014 Winter ESIP Meeting<br />
*Planning for Winter Meeting<br />
*Cluster Deliverable(s)<br />
**Science Software Best Practices?</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=20131009_Telecon&diff=4482120131009 Telecon2013-10-09T18:09:14Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>Agenda<br />
<br />
*Upcoming Events and Activities<br />
**SuperComputing13 - November 2013<br />
***First Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE), (to held in conjunction with SC13, room 503, Sunday, 17 November 2013, Denver, CO, USA)<br />
****http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk<br />
**AGU - December 2013<br />
**2014 Winter ESIP Meeting<br />
*Planning for Winter Meeting<br />
*Cluster Deliverable(s)<br />
**Science Software Best Practices?</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=20131009_Telecon&diff=4482020131009 Telecon2013-10-09T18:05:42Z<p>Wclenhardt: Created page with "Agenda *Upcoming Events and Activities *Planning for Winter Meeting *Cluster Deliverable(s) **Science Software Best Practices?"</p>
<hr />
<div>Agenda<br />
<br />
*Upcoming Events and Activities<br />
*Planning for Winter Meeting<br />
*Cluster Deliverable(s)<br />
**Science Software Best Practices?</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Science_Software&diff=44819Science Software2013-10-09T18:04:09Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<big><center>'''Welcome to the {{PAGENAME}} Cluster'''</center></big><br />
<br />
The overarching objective of the ESIP Science Software Cluster is to <br />
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" <br />
|- valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"<br />
|bgcolor="lightgreen" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
===[[/Archived Software Science Events|Events and Activities]]===<br />
{{:Science Software/Archived Software Science Events}}<br><br />
20131009 Telecon [[20131009 Telecon| Telecon Notes]]<br />
<br />
[[/Archived Software Science Events|Archive]]<br />
<br />
|bgcolor="lightblue" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
===Active Collaborations===<br />
* Software Institutes<br />
** Institute for Sustainable Earth and Environmental Software (ISEES) - http://isees.nceas.ucsb.edu<br />
**Water Science Software Institute (WSSI) - http://waters2i2.org<br />
<br />
|}<br />
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" <br />
|- valign="top" bgcolor="pink"<br />
|bgcolor="pink" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
===Resources===<br />
<br />
|bgcolor="#FFFFBB" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
=== Get Involved===<br />
* '''Email List:''' [http://rtpnet.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-sciencesoftware ESIP-Science Software]<br />
* '''[[/ScienceSoftware_Telecons|Telecons:]]'''<br />
** TBD; <br />
**Phone: <br />
**Meeting Code: <br />
* '''Cluster Contacts:''' Chris Lenhardt<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Backlink}}<br />
[[WS::{{PAGENAMEE}}]][[category:CollabArea]]</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Science_Software&diff=44818Science Software2013-10-09T17:59:47Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<big><center>'''Welcome to the {{PAGENAME}} Cluster'''</center></big><br />
<br />
The overarching objective of the ESIP Science Software Cluster is to <br />
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" <br />
|- valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"<br />
|bgcolor="lightgreen" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
===[[/Archived Software Science Events|Events and Activities]]===<br />
{{:Science Software/Archived Software Science Events}}<br><br />
[[/Archived Software Science Events|Archive]]<br />
<br />
|bgcolor="lightblue" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
===Active Collaborations===<br />
* Software Institutes<br />
** Institute for Sustainable Earth and Environmental Software (ISEES) - http://isees.nceas.ucsb.edu<br />
**Water Science Software Institute (WSSI) - http://waters2i2.org<br />
<br />
|}<br />
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" <br />
|- valign="top" bgcolor="pink"<br />
|bgcolor="pink" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
===Resources===<br />
<br />
|bgcolor="#FFFFBB" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
=== Get Involved===<br />
* '''Email List:''' [http://rtpnet.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-sciencesoftware ESIP-Science Software]<br />
* '''[[/ScienceSoftware_Telecons|Telecons:]]'''<br />
** TBD; <br />
**Phone: <br />
**Meeting Code: <br />
* '''Cluster Contacts:''' Chris Lenhardt<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Backlink}}<br />
[[WS::{{PAGENAMEE}}]][[category:CollabArea]]</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Data_Study_Working_Group&diff=44278Data Study Working Group2013-05-28T18:21:01Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome to the Data Decadal Survey working group area.'''<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" <br />
|- valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"<br />
|bgcolor="lightgreen" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
===What's New ===<br />
* 2013-05-23 telecon: [[telecon 05.23.13 materials]]<br />
* 2013-04-25 telecon: [[telecon 04.25.13 materials]]<br />
* 2013-03-21 telecon: [[telecon 03.21.13 materials]]<br />
* 2013-03-15 telecon: [[telecon 03.15.13 materials]] (chat with Paul)<br />
* 2013-02-28 telecon: [[telecon 02.28.13 materials]]<br />
* 2013-01-31 telecon: [[telecon materials]]<br />
* 2013-01-10: [[Winter 2013 Meeting session]] materials<br />
|bgcolor="lightblue" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
===Contrib===<br />
* Contribution<br />
|}<br />
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" <br />
|- valign="top" bgcolor="pink"<br />
|bgcolor="pink" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
===Resources===<br />
* What was "[[References to literature, sent by 01/10/13 meeting session participants]]" is now the reading list for the literature review<br />
* [[science data life cycle model]]<br />
* [[Reference to OMB memo on access to research results]]<br />
* [[Cluster mission statement]] discussion, drafts<br />
* [[Summer 2013 panel discussion]] discussion, planning, etc.<br />
* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-machine-readable-new-default-government- Executive Order -- Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information]<br />
* [http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf12113 NSF's "Vision and Strategy for Software for Science, Engineering, and Education: Cyberinfrastructure Framework for the 21st Century"]<br />
|bgcolor="#FFFFBB" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"|<br />
<br />
=== Get Involved===<br />
* '''Email List:''' [http://rtpnet.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-dds ESIP-Data Decadal Survey]<br />
* '''Email archive:''' http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/esip-dds/ ESIP-Data Decadal Survey Email Archive] (not yet enabled)<br />
* '''Telecons'''<br />
** 4th Thursday of the month, 1:00 MT, 3:00 ET<br />
* '''Contact Group Coordinators:''' [[User:aaaa | Anne Wilson]] or [[User:dddd | Denise Hills]] or [[User:ssss | Sarah Ramdeen]] or [[User:rrrr | Ruth Duerr]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[category:CollabArea]]</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Cluster_mission_statement&diff=43018Cluster mission statement2013-03-18T19:25:10Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page is a working area to create a mission statement for our efforts for the upcoming year. Please chime in.<br />
<br />
<br />
A possible mission statement spoken at the telecon: "define a set of options for what a decadal survey scope would be" ... would this be a correct rephrasing of that idea: "define a set of possible options regarding the scope for a decadal survey"?<br />
<br />
<br />
As other reports seem to define scope via a list of statements of task, perhaps "define a set of possible statements of task regarding the scope for a decadal survey".<br />
<br />
<br />
Rama's comment: How about "Assess need for a data decadal survey and develop a set of possible statements of task defining its scope".<br />
<br />
<br />
From Chris, how about (building on Rama's): "Outline/Describe <strike>Assess</Strike> the need for a data decadal survey (Survey), develop a set of <Strike>possible</Strike> statements of task defining its scope, and assess potential Survey constituencies.".<br />
<br />
Proposed path forward to operationalize the mission:<br />
*Summer Meeting - Panel <br />
**to develop a short white paper to describe a workshop to be held potentially in the fall of 2013 to define fully the nature, scope, tasks, constituencies for a Data Decadal Survey. <br />
*Fall 2013 - Workshop<br />
**The workshop output would be a short report that would be used to persuade potential funders to support and to implement.<br />
*Outyears - 2014-2015? Data Decadal Survey</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Cluster_mission_statement&diff=43017Cluster mission statement2013-03-18T19:17:46Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page is a working area to create a mission statement for our efforts for the upcoming year. Please chime in.<br />
<br />
<br />
A possible mission statement spoken at the telecon: "define a set of options for what a decadal survey scope would be" ... would this be a correct rephrasing of that idea: "define a set of possible options regarding the scope for a decadal survey"?<br />
<br />
<br />
As other reports seem to define scope via a list of statements of task, perhaps "define a set of possible statements of task regarding the scope for a decadal survey".<br />
<br />
<br />
Rama's comment: How about "Assess need for a data decadal survey and develop a set of possible statements of task defining its scope".<br />
<br />
<br />
From Chris, how about (building on Rama's): "Outline/Describe <strike>Assess</Strike> the need for a data decadal survey (Survey), develop a set of <Strike>possible</Strike> statements of task defining its scope, and assess potential Survey constituencies.".</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Cluster_mission_statement&diff=43016Cluster mission statement2013-03-18T19:10:09Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page is a working area to create a mission statement for our efforts for the upcoming year. Please chime in.<br />
<br />
<br />
A possible mission statement spoken at the telecon: "define a set of options for what a decadal survey scope would be" ... would this be a correct rephrasing of that idea: "define a set of possible options regarding the scope for a decadal survey"?<br />
<br />
<br />
As other reports seem to define scope via a list of statements of task, perhaps "define a set of possible statements of task regarding the scope for a decadal survey".<br />
<br />
<br />
Rama's comment: How about "Assess need for a data decadal survey and develop a set of possible statements of task defining its scope".<br />
<br />
<br />
From Chris, how about (building on Rama's): "Outline/Describe Assess need for a data decadal survey, develop a set of possible statements of task defining its scope, and assess potential constituencies".</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=400422012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-12T13:30:02Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* New Member Types */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
==January 2012 Bylaw Change Proposal==<br />
<br />
==='''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''===<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''===<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]===<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the 2012 Summer Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Proposed Membership Structure Changes==<br />
<br />
==='''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes'''===<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still a concern; slows down business meetings.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive (e.g. defunct or unfunded) and cannot be removed from membership list. Constitution is vague on how to remove members. <br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to clarify level of engagement for a 'Sponsor (Type 4) to reflect their level of support.<br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
<br />
==='''Proposed Solutions'''===<br />
====Challenge 1 & 2: Quorum and Inactive Members====<br />
*A member organization which does not register and participate in two consecutive meetings shall be moved to inactive status; participation shall include participation in a business meeting or other voting opportunity such as a partnership election.<br />
**Members who are moved to inactive status will not be counted towards quorum or other voting requirements.<br />
**An inactive member will remain on the inactive list for one year from the time they were placed on the list. After one year, the inactive member organization will be moved to a list of former ESIP partners.<br />
<br />
====Sponsors (DRAFT)====<br />
Challenge 3: Not all sponsor organizations contribute monetarily.<br />
*Sponsors contribute at different levels. This will be recognized by designating strategic partners as either regular or associate.<br />
*Change name from Sponsors to 'Strategic Partners'.<br />
**Strategic Partners who are part of the Federation but do not contribute monetary or in kind contributions will be considered non-voting "Associate" members.<br />
<br />
===='''New Member Types'''====<br />
Challenge 4: New Member Types<br />
*Redefine Type 5 as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders (N.B.: January 2012 - Type 3 Definition amended to include data users)<br />
*Allow Individuals to join the Federation as an Associate Member.<br />
<br />
Rationale: <br />
There are ESIP members who are comprised of a number of other entities many of whom may also be ESIP members. <br />
Individuals participate in ESIP via their member organizations. However, there may be individuals, such as graduate students or researchers not affiliated with a current member who may like to participate. Also would we charge? I'd pay $20 a year to be an Associate Member so I can put it on my resume. Would we offer any other group benefit?<br />
<br />
==='''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''===<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
==='''Notes'''===<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
==='''Impacts on Type Representation'''===<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=400412012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-12T13:29:43Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Sponsors (DRAFT) */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
==January 2012 Bylaw Change Proposal==<br />
<br />
==='''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''===<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''===<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]===<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the 2012 Summer Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Proposed Membership Structure Changes==<br />
<br />
==='''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes'''===<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still a concern; slows down business meetings.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive (e.g. defunct or unfunded) and cannot be removed from membership list. Constitution is vague on how to remove members. <br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to clarify level of engagement for a 'Sponsor (Type 4) to reflect their level of support.<br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
<br />
==='''Proposed Solutions'''===<br />
====Challenge 1 & 2: Quorum and Inactive Members====<br />
*A member organization which does not register and participate in two consecutive meetings shall be moved to inactive status; participation shall include participation in a business meeting or other voting opportunity such as a partnership election.<br />
**Members who are moved to inactive status will not be counted towards quorum or other voting requirements.<br />
**An inactive member will remain on the inactive list for one year from the time they were placed on the list. After one year, the inactive member organization will be moved to a list of former ESIP partners.<br />
<br />
====Sponsors (DRAFT)====<br />
Challenge 3: Not all sponsor organizations contribute monetarily.<br />
*Sponsors contribute at different levels. This will be recognized by designating strategic partners as either regular or associate.<br />
*Change name from Sponsors to 'Strategic Partners'.<br />
**Strategic Partners who are part of the Federation but do not contribute monetary or in kind contributions will be considered non-voting "Associate" members.<br />
<br />
===='''New Member Types'''====<br />
Challenge 3: New Member Types<br />
*Redefine Type 5 as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders (N.B.: January 2012 - Type 3 Definition amended to include data users)<br />
*Allow Individuals to join the Federation as an Associate Member.<br />
<br />
Rationale: <br />
There are ESIP members who are comprised of a number of other entities many of whom may also be ESIP members. <br />
Individuals participate in ESIP via their member organizations. However, there may be individuals, such as graduate students or researchers not affiliated with a current member who may like to participate. Also would we charge? I'd pay $20 a year to be an Associate Member so I can put it on my resume. Would we offer any other group benefit?<br />
<br />
==='''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''===<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
==='''Notes'''===<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
==='''Impacts on Type Representation'''===<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=400402012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-12T13:29:23Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
==January 2012 Bylaw Change Proposal==<br />
<br />
==='''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''===<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''===<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]===<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the 2012 Summer Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Proposed Membership Structure Changes==<br />
<br />
==='''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes'''===<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still a concern; slows down business meetings.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive (e.g. defunct or unfunded) and cannot be removed from membership list. Constitution is vague on how to remove members. <br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to clarify level of engagement for a 'Sponsor (Type 4) to reflect their level of support.<br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
<br />
==='''Proposed Solutions'''===<br />
====Challenge 1 & 2: Quorum and Inactive Members====<br />
*A member organization which does not register and participate in two consecutive meetings shall be moved to inactive status; participation shall include participation in a business meeting or other voting opportunity such as a partnership election.<br />
**Members who are moved to inactive status will not be counted towards quorum or other voting requirements.<br />
**An inactive member will remain on the inactive list for one year from the time they were placed on the list. After one year, the inactive member organization will be moved to a list of former ESIP partners.<br />
<br />
====Sponsors (DRAFT)====<br />
Challenge 4: Not all sponsor organizations contribute monetarily.<br />
*Sponsors contribute at different levels. This will be recognized by designating strategic partners as either regular or associate.<br />
*Change name from Sponsors to 'Strategic Partners'.<br />
**Strategic Partners who are part of the Federation but do not contribute monetary or in kind contributions will be considered non-voting "Associate" members.<br />
<br />
===='''New Member Types'''====<br />
Challenge 3: New Member Types<br />
*Redefine Type 5 as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders (N.B.: January 2012 - Type 3 Definition amended to include data users)<br />
*Allow Individuals to join the Federation as an Associate Member.<br />
<br />
Rationale: <br />
There are ESIP members who are comprised of a number of other entities many of whom may also be ESIP members. <br />
Individuals participate in ESIP via their member organizations. However, there may be individuals, such as graduate students or researchers not affiliated with a current member who may like to participate. Also would we charge? I'd pay $20 a year to be an Associate Member so I can put it on my resume. Would we offer any other group benefit?<br />
<br />
==='''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''===<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
==='''Notes'''===<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
==='''Impacts on Type Representation'''===<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=400392012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-12T13:26:55Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Proposed Solutions */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
==January 2012 Bylaw Change Proposal==<br />
<br />
==='''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''===<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''===<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]===<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the 2012 Summer Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Proposed Membership Structure Changes==<br />
<br />
==='''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes'''===<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still a concern; slows down business meetings.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive (e.g. defunct or unfunded) and cannot be removed from membership list. Constitution is vague on how to remove members. <br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to have membership levels for strategic partners to reflect their level of support.<br />
<br />
==='''Proposed Solutions'''===<br />
====Challenge 1 & 2: Quorum and Inactive Members====<br />
*A member organization which does not register and participate in two consecutive meetings shall be moved to inactive status; participation shall include participation in a business meeting or other voting opportunity such as a partnership election.<br />
**Members who are moved to inactive status will not be counted towards quorum or other voting requirements.<br />
**An inactive member will remain on the inactive list for one year from the time they were placed on the list. After one year, the inactive member organization will be moved to a list of former ESIP partners.<br />
<br />
====Sponsors (DRAFT)====<br />
Challenge 4: Not all sponsor organizations contribute monetarily.<br />
*Sponsors contribute at different levels. This will be recognized by designating strategic partners as either regular or associate.<br />
*Change name from Sponsors to 'Strategic Partners'.<br />
**Strategic Partners who are part of the Federation but do not contribute monetary or in kind contributions will be considered non-voting "Associate" members.<br />
<br />
===='''New Member Types'''====<br />
Challenge 3: New Member Types<br />
*Redefine Type 5 as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders (N.B.: January 2012 - Type 3 Definition amended to include data users)<br />
*Allow Individuals to join the Federation as an Associate Member.<br />
<br />
Rationale: <br />
There are ESIP members who are comprised of a number of other entities many of whom may also be ESIP members. <br />
Individuals participate in ESIP via their member organizations. However, there may be individuals, such as graduate students or researchers not affiliated with a current member who may like to participate. Also would we charge? I'd pay $20 a year to be an Associate Member so I can put it on my resume. Would we offer any other group benefit?<br />
<br />
==='''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''===<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
==='''Notes'''===<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
==='''Impacts on Type Representation'''===<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=400322012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-11T21:00:38Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* New Member Types */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
==January 2012 Bylaw Change Proposal==<br />
<br />
==='''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''===<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''===<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]===<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the 2012 Summer Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Proposed Membership Structure Changes==<br />
<br />
==='''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes'''===<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still a concern; slows down business meetings.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive (e.g. defunct or unfunded) and cannot be removed from membership list. Constitution is vague on how to remove members. <br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to have membership levels for strategic partners to reflect their level of support.<br />
<br />
==='''Proposed Solutions'''===<br />
Challenge 1 & 2: Quorum and Inactive Members<br />
*A member organization which does not register and participate in two consecutive meetings shall be moved to inactive status; participation shall include participation in a business meeting or other voting opportunity such as a partnership election.<br />
**Members who are moved to inactive status will not be counted towards quorum or other voting requirements.<br />
**An inactive member will remain on the inactive list for one year from the time they were placed on the list. After one year, the inactive member organization will be moved to a list of former ESIP partners.<br />
<br />
====Sponsors (DRAFT)====<br />
Challenge 4: Not all sponsor organizations contribute monetarily.<br />
*Sponsors contribute at different levels. This will be recognized by designating strategic partners as either regular or associate.<br />
*Change name from Sponsors to 'Strategic Partners'.<br />
**Strategic Partners who are part of the Federation but do not contribute monetary or in kind contributions will be considered non-voting "Associate" members.<br />
<br />
===='''New Member Types'''====<br />
Challenge 3: New Member Types<br />
*Redefine Type 5 as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders (N.B.: January 2012 - Type 3 Definition amended to include data users)<br />
*Allow Individuals to join the Federation as an Associate Member.<br />
<br />
Rationale: <br />
There are ESIP members who are comprised of a number of other entities many of whom may also be ESIP members. <br />
Individuals participate in ESIP via their member organizations. However, there may be individuals, such as graduate students or researchers not affiliated with a current member who may like to participate. Also would we charge? I'd pay $20 a year to be an Associate Member so I can put it on my resume. Would we offer any other group benefit?<br />
<br />
==='''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''===<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
==='''Notes'''===<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
==='''Impacts on Type Representation'''===<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=400312012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-11T20:53:25Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Proposed Solutions */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
==January 2012 Bylaw Change Proposal==<br />
<br />
==='''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''===<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''===<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]===<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the 2012 Summer Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Proposed Membership Structure Changes==<br />
<br />
==='''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes'''===<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still a concern; slows down business meetings.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive (e.g. defunct or unfunded) and cannot be removed from membership list. Constitution is vague on how to remove members. <br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to have membership levels for strategic partners to reflect their level of support.<br />
<br />
==='''Proposed Solutions'''===<br />
Challenge 1 & 2: Quorum and Inactive Members<br />
*A member organization which does not register and participate in two consecutive meetings shall be moved to inactive status; participation shall include participation in a business meeting or other voting opportunity such as a partnership election.<br />
**Members who are moved to inactive status will not be counted towards quorum or other voting requirements.<br />
**An inactive member will remain on the inactive list for one year from the time they were placed on the list. After one year, the inactive member organization will be moved to a list of former ESIP partners.<br />
<br />
====Sponsors (DRAFT)====<br />
Challenge 4: Not all sponsor organizations contribute monetarily.<br />
*Sponsors contribute at different levels. This will be recognized by designating strategic partners as either regular or associate.<br />
*Change name from Sponsors to 'Strategic Partners'.<br />
**Strategic Partners who are part of the Federation but do not contribute monetary or in kind contributions will be considered non-voting "Associate" members.<br />
<br />
===='''New Member Types'''====<br />
*Redefine Type 5as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders (N.B.: January 2012 - Type 3 Definition amended to include data users)<br />
*Allow Individuals to join the Federation as an Associate Member.<br />
<br />
==='''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''===<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
==='''Notes'''===<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
==='''Impacts on Type Representation'''===<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=400302012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-11T20:50:36Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* New Member Types */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
==January 2012 Bylaw Change Proposal==<br />
<br />
==='''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''===<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''===<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]===<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the 2012 Summer Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Proposed Membership Structure Changes==<br />
<br />
==='''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes'''===<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still a concern; slows down business meetings.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive (e.g. defunct or unfunded) and cannot be removed from membership list. Constitution is vague on how to remove members. <br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to have membership levels for strategic partners to reflect their level of support.<br />
<br />
==='''Proposed Solutions'''===<br />
Inactive Members<br />
*A member organization which does not register and participate in two consecutive meetings shall be moved to inactive status; participation shall include participation in a business meeting or other voting opportunity such as a partnership election.<br />
**Members who are moved to inactive status will not be counted towards quorum or other voting requirements.<br />
**An inactive member will remain on the inactive list for one year from the time they were placed on the list. After one year, the inactive member organization will be moved to a list of former ESIP partners.<br />
<br />
====Sponsors (DRAFT)====<br />
*Sponsors contribute at different levels. This will be recognized by designating strategic partners as either regular or associate.<br />
**Sponsors who are part of the Federation but do not contribute monetary or in kind contributions will be considered non-voting "Associate" members.<br />
<br />
===='''New Member Types'''====<br />
*Redefine Type 5as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders (N.B.: January 2012 - Type 3 Definition amended to include data users)<br />
*Allow Individuals to join the Federation as an Associate Member.<br />
<br />
==='''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''===<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
==='''Notes'''===<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
==='''Impacts on Type Representation'''===<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=400262012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-11T20:15:23Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Strategic Partner Tiers (DRAFT) */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
==January 2012 Bylaw Change Proposal==<br />
<br />
==='''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''===<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''===<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]===<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the 2012 Summer Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Proposed Membership Structure Changes==<br />
<br />
==='''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes'''===<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still a concern; slows down business meetings.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive (e.g. defunct or unfunded) and cannot be removed from membership list. Constitution is vague on how to remove members. <br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to have membership levels for strategic partners to reflect their level of support.<br />
<br />
==='''Proposed Solutions'''===<br />
Inactive Members<br />
*A member organization which does not register and participate in two consecutive meetings shall be moved to inactive status; participation shall include participation in a business meeting or other voting opportunity such as a partnership election.<br />
**Members who are moved to inactive status will not be counted towards quorum or other voting requirements.<br />
**An inactive member will remain on the inactive list for one year from the time they were placed on the list. After one year, the inactive member organization will be moved to a list of former ESIP partners.<br />
<br />
====Sponsors (DRAFT)====<br />
*Sponsors contribute at different levels. This will be recognized by designating strategic partners as either regular or associate.<br />
**Sponsors who are part of the Federation but do not contribute monetary or in kind contributions will be considered non-voting "Associate" members.<br />
<br />
===='''New Member Types'''====<br />
*Redefine Type 5 as data users (January 2012 - Type 3 Definition amended to include users)<br />
*Redefine Type 4 or other Type tier as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders<br />
**Funders identified through their Membership Tier<br />
*Allow Individuals to join the Federation as an Associate Member.<br />
<br />
==='''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''===<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
==='''Notes'''===<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
==='''Impacts on Type Representation'''===<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=400252012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-11T20:07:15Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Proposed Solutions */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
==January 2012 Bylaw Change Proposal==<br />
<br />
==='''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''===<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''===<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]===<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the 2012 Summer Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Proposed Membership Structure Changes==<br />
<br />
==='''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes'''===<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still a concern; slows down business meetings.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive (e.g. defunct or unfunded) and cannot be removed from membership list. Constitution is vague on how to remove members. <br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to have membership levels for strategic partners to reflect their level of support.<br />
<br />
==='''Proposed Solutions'''===<br />
Inactive Members<br />
*A member organization which does not register and participate in two consecutive meetings shall be moved to inactive status; participation shall include participation in a business meeting or other voting opportunity such as a partnership election.<br />
**Members who are moved to inactive status will not be counted towards quorum or other voting requirements.<br />
**An inactive member will remain on the inactive list for one year from the time they were placed on the list. After one year, the inactive member organization will be moved to a list of former ESIP partners.<br />
<br />
====Strategic Partner Tiers (DRAFT)====<br />
*Strategic Partners contribute at different levels. This will be recognized by designating strategic partners as either bronze, silver, gold, or platinum.<br />
**Bronze members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions between up to $99,999<br />
**Silver members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions valued between $100,000 and $499,999<br />
**Gold members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions valued between $500,000 and $999,999<br />
**Platinum members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions over $1 million.<br />
*Strategic partners (past sponsors) who are part of the Federation but do not contribute monetary or in kind contributions will be considered non-voting "Associate" members.<br />
<br />
===='''New Member Types'''====<br />
*Redefine Type 5 as data users (January 2012 - Type 3 Definition amended to include users)<br />
*Redefine Type 4 or other Type tier as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders<br />
**Funders identified through their Membership Tier<br />
*Allow Individuals to join the Federation as an Associate Member.<br />
<br />
==='''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''===<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
==='''Notes'''===<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
==='''Impacts on Type Representation'''===<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=400242012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-11T20:03:55Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
==January 2012 Bylaw Change Proposal==<br />
<br />
==='''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''===<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''===<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==='''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]===<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the 2012 Summer Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Proposed Membership Structure Changes==<br />
<br />
==='''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes'''===<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still a concern; slows down business meetings.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive (e.g. defunct or unfunded) and cannot be removed from membership list. Constitution is vague on how to remove members. <br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to have membership levels for strategic partners to reflect their level of support.<br />
<br />
==='''Proposed Solutions'''===<br />
Inactive Members<br />
*A member organization who does not participate in two consecutive meetings shall be moved to inactive status. (business meetings, ESIP meetings, telecons?)<br />
**Members who are moved to inactive status will not be counted towards quorum or other voting requirements.<br />
**An inactive member will remain on the inactive list for one year from the time they were placed on the list. After one year, the inactive member organization will be moved to a list of former ESIP partners.<br />
<br />
====Strategic Partner Tiers (DRAFT)====<br />
*Strategic Partners contribute at different levels. This will be recognized by designating strategic partners as either bronze, silver, gold, or platinum.<br />
**Bronze members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions between up to $99,999<br />
**Silver members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions valued between $100,000 and $499,999<br />
**Gold members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions valued between $500,000 and $999,999<br />
**Platinum members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions over $1 million.<br />
*Strategic partners (past sponsors) who are part of the Federation but do not contribute monetary or in kind contributions will be considered non-voting "Associate" members.<br />
<br />
===='''New Member Types'''====<br />
*Redefine Type 5 as data users (January 2012 - Type 3 Definition amended to include users)<br />
*Redefine Type 4 or other Type tier as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders<br />
**Funders identified through their Membership Tier<br />
*Allow Individuals to join the Federation as an Associate Member.<br />
<br />
==='''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''===<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
==='''Notes'''===<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
==='''Impacts on Type Representation'''===<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=399142012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-05T19:37:33Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the Winter Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Proposed Membership Structure Changes'''</center><br />
<br />
'''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Change'''<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still an issue.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive or defunct or not funded and need to be removed from the list of active members.<br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create some additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to have membership levels for strategic partners to reflect their levels of support.<br />
<br />
'''Proposed Solutions'''<br />
Defunct Members<br />
*A member organization who does not participate in two consecutive meetings shall be moved to inactive status.<br />
**Members who are moved to inactive status will not be counted towards quorum or other voting requirements.<br />
**An inactive member will remain on the inactive list for one year from the time they were placed on the list. After one year, the inactive member organization will be moved to a list of former ESIP partners.<br />
<br />
Strategic Partner Tiers [DRAFT]<br />
*Strategic Partners contribute at different levels. This will be recognized by designating strategic partners as either bronze, silver, gold, or platinum.<br />
**Bronze members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions between up to $99,999<br />
**Silver members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions valued between $100,000 and $499,999<br />
**Gold members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions valued between $500,000 and $999,999<br />
**Platinum members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions over $1 million.<br />
*Strategic partners who are part of the Federation but do not contribute monetary or in kind contributions will be considered non-voting "Associate" members.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
'''New Member Types'''<br />
*Redefine Type 5 as data users<br />
*Redefine Type 4 as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders<br />
**Funders identified through their Membership Tier<br />
*Allow Individuals to join the Federation as an Associate Member.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Notes'''<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
'''Impacts on Type Representation'''<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=399132012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-05T19:28:56Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the Winter Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Proposed Membership Structure Changes'''</center><br />
<br />
'''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Change'''<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still an issue.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive or defunct or not funded and need to be removed from the list of active members.<br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create some additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to have membership levels for strategic partners to reflect their levels of support.<br />
<br />
'''Proposed Solutions'''<br />
Defunct Members<br />
*A member organization who does not participate in two consecutive meetings shall be moved to inactive status.<br />
**Members who are moved to inactive status will not be counted towards quorum or other voting requirements.<br />
**An inactive member will remain on the inactive list for one year from the time they were placed on the list. After one year, the inactive member organization will be moved to a list of former ESIP partners.<br />
<br />
Strategic Partner Tiers [DRAFT]<br />
*Strategic Partners contribute at different levels. This will be recognized by designating strategic partners as either bronze, silver, gold, or platinum.<br />
**Bronze members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions between up to $99,999<br />
**Silver members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions valued between $100,000 and $499,999<br />
**Gold members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions valued between $500,000 and $999,999<br />
**Platinum members will contribute monetary or in kind contributions over $1 million.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
'''Solution Strategies'''<br />
:Classify each ESIP by both a '''Type''' and a '''Membership Tier'''<br />
::'''Type''' represents the member’s data activities<br />
::'''Membership Tier''' represents their level of ESIP service/participation (e.g., funding, voting)<br />
:Redefine Type 5 as data users<br />
:Redefine Type 4 as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders<br />
::Funders identified through their Membership Tier<br />
:Set ESIP expiration date for inactive ESIPs, but provide renewal process.<br />
:Allow Individuals to join the Federation as any Type (generally they would be Type 5- Data User)<br />
<br />
'''Proposed Membership Tiers'''<br />
:'''Sustainer- high-level'''<br />
:'''Sustainer- low-level'''<br />
:'''Full''' (voting)<br />
:'''Associate''' (non-voting)<br />
<br />
'''Notes'''<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
'''Impacts on Type Representation'''<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=399122012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-05T19:12:26Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the Winter Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Proposed Membership Structure Changes'''</center><br />
<br />
'''Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Change'''<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still an issue.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive or defunct or not funded and need to be removed from the list of active members.<br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create some additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to have membership levels for strategic partners to reflect their levels of support.<br />
<br />
'''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
'''Solution Strategies'''<br />
:Classify each ESIP by both a '''Type''' and a '''Membership Tier'''<br />
::'''Type''' represents the member’s data activities<br />
::'''Membership Tier''' represents their level of ESIP service/participation (e.g., funding, voting)<br />
:Redefine Type 5 as data users<br />
:Redefine Type 4 as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders<br />
::Funders identified through their Membership Tier<br />
:Set ESIP expiration date for inactive ESIPs, but provide renewal process.<br />
:Allow Individuals to join the Federation as any Type (generally they would be Type 5- Data User)<br />
<br />
'''Proposed Membership Tiers'''<br />
:'''Sustainer- high-level'''<br />
:'''Sustainer- low-level'''<br />
:'''Full''' (voting)<br />
:'''Associate''' (non-voting)<br />
<br />
'''Notes'''<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
'''Impacts on Type Representation'''<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Proposed_Bylaw_Changes&diff=399112012 Proposed Bylaw Changes2012-07-05T19:03:57Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Discuss and vote''' on the following three proposed Bylaw changes at the Winter 2012 ESIP Meeting:''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Change Type 3 Member Definition'''<br />
<br />
Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the <s>development and provision of Earth science applications.</s>development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.<br />
: '''Comments:''' This proposed change has been amended based upon comments received at last year’s Winter Meeting.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions'''<br />
<br />
Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the Assembly for passage.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change replaces the original wording in which unanimous consent was required for resolutions that imposed requirements on its members.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Add new Data Stewardship Committee''' [proposed name amended and adopted]<br />
<br />
Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Stewardship. Its roles are:<br />
::a) To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.<br />
::b) To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.<br />
::c) To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.<br />
:'''Comments:''' This proposed change effectively elevates the role of the Preservation and Stewardship Cluster to recognize its importance. The change also expands its scope to encompass data quality, metadata, and other data-specific topics. This Committee provides an analog to the Information Technology Committee for data-related issues. Committees can receive funding and make formal recommendations.<br />
:'''<font color="gray">Public Comments:</font>'''<br />
::I agree with everything about this except the proposed new name. "Data Science", as the term is commonly understood (see, for example, the [http://www.jds-online.com/ Journal of Data Science], or Mike Loukides's "[http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/06/what-is-data-science.html What is data science?]") is quite outside the scope of the current P&C Cluster and proposed committee. "Data Stewardship" by itself covers all the roles noted in the proposal, except for those parts of "access" that are more properly the concern of IT&I. [[User:Frew|Frew]] 15:56, 19 December 2011 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<span id="membership"></span>'''''Discuss''' and refine the following proposals at a Breakfast session at the Winter Meeting, but vote upon them at a later date.''<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>'''Proposed Membership Structure Changes'''</center><br />
<br />
""Continuing Challenges to be Addressed Through C & B Recommended Changes""<br />
#Ongoing difficulty with quorums at annual business meeting. Dealt with partially through changing the definition of a quorum, but still an issue.<br />
#Related to the first bullet, a number or ESIP organizations are inactive or defunct or not funded and need to be removed from the list of active members.<br />
#Suggestions have arisen to create some additional membership categories to more fully represent breadth of members as well as to support other types of engagement.<br />
#There is a recognition of a potential need to have membership levels for strategic partners to reflect their levels of support.<br />
<br />
'''What an Improved Membership Structure Can Support'''<br />
:Expectations of Being a Member<br />
:New Member Types<br />
::Individuals (including students and retirees)<br />
::Data Users (e.g. decision/policy makers; engagement for understanding context for data use, workflow, data formats, etc.)<br />
::Multi-function/comprehensive umbrella organizations/ consortiums <br />
:Easy Member Termination (i.e. inactive or defunct orgs)<br />
::Some ESIPs become defunct after their funding ends. We currently have no method to remove them from membership list <br />
<br />
'''Solution Strategies'''<br />
:Classify each ESIP by both a '''Type''' and a '''Membership Tier'''<br />
::'''Type''' represents the member’s data activities<br />
::'''Membership Tier''' represents their level of ESIP service/participation (e.g., funding, voting)<br />
:Redefine Type 5 as data users<br />
:Redefine Type 4 as any multi-function or umbrella entity, not limited to funders<br />
::Funders identified through their Membership Tier<br />
:Set ESIP expiration date for inactive ESIPs, but provide renewal process.<br />
:Allow Individuals to join the Federation as any Type (generally they would be Type 5- Data User)<br />
<br />
'''Proposed Membership Tiers'''<br />
:'''Sustainer- high-level'''<br />
:'''Sustainer- low-level'''<br />
:'''Full''' (voting)<br />
:'''Associate''' (non-voting)<br />
<br />
'''Notes'''<br />
:Executive Committee sets requirements to attain '''Full''' or '''Sustainer''' status, e.g. '''Full''' status requires paying for 2 Meeting registrations in the past year<br />
:Data Users (Type 5) restricted to '''Associate''' status<br />
:'''Associate''' memberships expire after specified period, e.g., 5 years<br />
:'''Associate''' members can participate fully in ESIP activities, with the exception of Assembly voting.<br />
<br />
'''Impacts on Type Representation'''<br />
:Type 4 and 5 gain full representation on Administrative Committees<br />
:Type 4 reps provide Administrative perspective<br />
:Type 5 reps provide Data User perspective<br />
:Several existing and pending ESIPs may choose to switch to Type 4 status (USGS, NCAR, etc.)<br />
:Although Associate members cannot vote in the Assembly, they retain representation via their '''Type''' Representatives in Administrative Committees</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:EarthCube_Design_Approach&diff=36332Talk:EarthCube Design Approach2011-10-10T15:38:27Z<p>Wclenhardt: -- ~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>== -- [[User:Wclenhardt|Wclenhardt]] 09:38, 10 October 2011 (MDT) ==<br />
<br />
Need to figure out who the other partners should be, or do we make this very broad, i.e. we highlight all ESIP members?</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=EarthCube_Design_Approach&diff=36331EarthCube Design Approach2011-10-10T15:37:29Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''EarthCube Design Approaches'''<br />
<br />
''[[Vision for EarthCube]] (ESIP Leadership)'' <br />
<br />
:A description of the envisioned scope of EarthCube and how will it transform geosciences research, including the functionality EarthCube can provide to the whole Geosciences community.<br />
<br />
''[[Community-Based Governance model]] (ESIP Leadership)''<br />
:The community structures necessary to acquire current and future user input/requirements, to respond to changing data and science needs, to adapt and adopt new technologies, to coordinate components and facilities, to foster partnerships and community participation.<br />
<br />
''[[Conceptual CI Architecture]] (Rahul, Sara, Chris Lynnes??)'' <br />
:The architecture necessary to provide the services of EarthCube, to integrate advanced information technologies that facilitate access to distributed resources such as computational tools and services, instruments, data, and people.<br />
<br />
''[[Design Process]] (Bruce, ??)''<br />
:User requirement-driven design methodology, identification of design team members, qualifications of development team, time-line for design demonstration and scale-up, design tools and practices that create robust, sustainable, well-documented and open source infrastructure<br />
<br />
''[[Operations and Sustainability Model]] (ESIP professional staff)''<br />
:Operational aspects of a community-wide enterprise that address such activities as centralized functions, coordination of services, user services, including training, and identification of what it will take to sustain a viable infrastructure over a long periods of time and who will carry out these functions.</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=EarthCube_Design_Approach&diff=36319EarthCube Design Approach2011-10-07T20:24:21Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''EarthCube Design Approaches'''<br />
<br />
''[[Vision for EarthCube]]'' <br />
<br />
:A description of the envisioned scope of EarthCube and how will it transform geosciences research, including the functionality EarthCube can provide to the whole Geosciences community.<br />
<br />
''[[Community-Based Governance model]]''<br />
:The community structures necessary to acquire current and future user input/requirements, to respond to changing data and science needs, to adapt and adopt new technologies, to coordinate components and facilities, to foster partnerships and community participation.<br />
<br />
''[[Conceptual CI Architecture]]'' <br />
:The architecture necessary to provide the services of EarthCube, to integrate advanced information technologies that facilitate access to distributed resources such as computational tools and services, instruments, data, and people.<br />
<br />
''[[Design Process]]''<br />
:User requirement-driven design methodology, identification of design team members, qualifications of development team, time-line for design demonstration and scale-up, design tools and practices that create robust, sustainable, well-documented and open source infrastructure<br />
<br />
''[[Operations and Sustainability Model]]''<br />
:Operational aspects of a community-wide enterprise that address such activities as centralized functions, coordination of services, user services, including training, and identification of what it will take to sustain a viable infrastructure over a long periods of time and who will carry out these functions.</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=EarthCube_Design_Approach&diff=36318EarthCube Design Approach2011-10-07T20:21:32Z<p>Wclenhardt: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''EarthCube Design Approaches'''<br />
<br />
[[''Vision for EarthCube'']] <br />
<br />
:A description of the envisioned scope of EarthCube and how will it transform geosciences research, including the functionality EarthCube can provide to the whole Geosciences community.<br />
<br />
[[''Community-Based Governance model'']]<br />
:The community structures necessary to acquire current and future user input/requirements, to respond to changing data and science needs, to adapt and adopt new technologies, to coordinate components and facilities, to foster partnerships and community participation.<br />
<br />
[[''Conceptual CI Architecture'']] <br />
:The architecture necessary to provide the services of EarthCube, to integrate advanced information technologies that facilitate access to distributed resources such as computational tools and services, instruments, data, and people.<br />
<br />
[[''Design Process'']]<br />
:User requirement-driven design methodology, identification of design team members, qualifications of development team, time-line for design demonstration and scale-up, design tools and practices that create robust, sustainable, well-documented and open source infrastructure<br />
<br />
[[''Operations and Sustainability Model'']]<br />
:Operational aspects of a community-wide enterprise that address such activities as centralized functions, coordination of services, user services, including training, and identification of what it will take to sustain a viable infrastructure over a long periods of time and who will carry out these functions.</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=EarthCube_Design_Approach&diff=36317EarthCube Design Approach2011-10-07T20:20:23Z<p>Wclenhardt: Created page with "'''EarthCube Design Approaches''' ''Vision for EarthCube'' :A description of the envisioned scope of EarthCube and how will it transform geosciences research, including the f..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''EarthCube Design Approaches'''<br />
<br />
''Vision for EarthCube'' <br />
<br />
:A description of the envisioned scope of EarthCube and how will it transform geosciences research, including the functionality EarthCube can provide to the whole Geosciences community.<br />
<br />
''Community-Based Governance model''<br />
:The community structures necessary to acquire current and future user input/requirements, to respond to changing data and science needs, to adapt and adopt new technologies, to coordinate components and facilities, to foster partnerships and community participation.<br />
<br />
''Conceptual CI Architecture'' <br />
:The architecture necessary to provide the services of EarthCube, to integrate advanced information technologies that facilitate access to distributed resources such as computational tools and services, instruments, data, and people.<br />
<br />
''Design Process''<br />
:User requirement-driven design methodology, identification of design team members, qualifications of development team, time-line for design demonstration and scale-up, design tools and practices that create robust, sustainable, well-documented and open source infrastructure<br />
<br />
''Operations and Sustainability Model''<br />
:Operational aspects of a community-wide enterprise that address such activities as centralized functions, coordination of services, user services, including training, and identification of what it will take to sustain a viable infrastructure over a long periods of time and who will carry out these functions.</div>Wclenhardthttps://wiki.esipfed.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=36315Main Page2011-10-07T20:05:22Z<p>Wclenhardt: /* Member Resources */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Meetings==<br />
The Earth Science Information Partner (ESIP) Federation meets twice annually, January and July. The meetings each take on a different focus. The winter meeting, held the first week of January each year in Washington, DC has a focus on higher level policy issues. The summer meeting, typically held in July (the week varies) moves around the country to different locations. The summer meeting is technical in nature. The meetings supplement interactions throughout the year by offering concentrated blocks of time to work collaboratively on issues of interest to the community. Each meeting has a theme, ranging from evaluating the impacts of data to defining data and information quality. Feel free to join us at an upcoming ESIP Federation meeting. Links to such meetings are found below.<br />
<br />
:[[Winter 2012 Meeting|Jan 4-6, 2012 ESIP Winter Meeting, Washington, D.C.]]<br />
:[[Past Meetings]]<br />
:[[Visioneers]]<br />
<br />
==Data and Informatics Collaborations==<br />
:[[CF|CF Standards]]<br />
:[[Cloud Computing|Cloud Computing]]<br />
:[[Decisions]]<br />
:[[Discovery_Cluster|Discovery]] (formerly [[Federated Search]])<br />
:[[Drupal Working Group]]<br />
:[[Earth Science Collaboratory]]<br />
:[[Information Quality]]<br />
:[[Interoperability and Technology|Information Technology and Interoperability]]<br />
:[[Preservation and Stewardship]]<br />
:[[Products and Services]]<br />
:[[Semantic Web]]<br />
:[[SPG_Agenda_July_12_2011| SPG Summer 2011 workshop]]<br />
:[[Sensor Web]] ''(Inactive)''<br />
:[[Visualization]]<br />
:[[Web Services]] ''(Inactive)'<br />
<br />
==Societal Benefit Area Collaborations==<br />
:[[Image:Silver Falls OR.JPG|left|Silver Falls, OR]]<br />
:[[Air Quality Work Group | Air Quality]]<br />
:[[Carbon]] ''(inactive)''<br />
:[[Coastal Management]] ''(inactive)''<br />
:[[Disaster Management]] ''(inactive)''<br />
:[[Ecological Forecasting]] ''(inactive)''<br />
:[[Energy and Climate]]<br />
:[[Public Health]] ''(inactive)''<br />
:[[Water Management]] ''(inactive)''<br />
<br />
==Education and Outreach Collaborations==<br />
<br />
:[[Commercial Development]] ''(inactive)''<br />
:[[Education]]<br />
:: [[Climate Education Working Group]]<br />
:: [[Internal ESIP Education Working Group]]<br />
:[[ESIP Expertise]]<br />
:[[Ongoing Topical Webinar Series]] ''(inactive)''<br />
:[[Data Management Workshop|Workshop on Data Management]] ''(inactive)''<br />
:[[Data Management Short Course|Data Management Training]]<br />
:[[Student Cluster]]<br />
<br />
==Administration==<br />
:Committees<br />
::[[Constitution and Bylaws]]<br />
::[[Executive Committee]]<br />
::[[Finance]]<br />
::[[Partnership]]<br />
:Awards<br />
::[[Charles Falkenberg Award]]<br />
::[[Martha Maiden Award]]<br />
:Documents<br />
::[[Copyright Policy]]<br />
::[[Federation Documents|Defining Documents]]<br />
<br />
==Member Resources==<br />
:[[FAQ]]<br />
:Collaboration Tools<br />
::[[Cluster tools]]<br />
::[[FUNding Friday Projects]]<br />
::[[Demonstrations|Demonstrations]]<br />
::[[Discovery]] ''(Inactive)''<br />
::[[Earth Information Exchange]] ''(Inactive)''<br />
::[[Testbed]]<br />
:Grant Opportunities<br />
::[[Media:Grant_opps_summer_2010_conference_final_2.doc|Grant Opportunities Summer 2010]]<br />
::[[Media:Grant_addenum_August_2010.doc|Grant Addendum August 2010]]<br />
:Members<br />
::[http://esipfed.org/node/20 Partner List]<br />
::[http://www.esipfed.org/expert_search Member/Skill Search]<br />
:White Papers<br />
::[[Unique Object Identifiers]]<br />
::EarthCube<br />
:::[[EarthCube Design Approach]]</div>Wclenhardt