Difference between revisions of "110915 DataManagementNotes"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Participants: Ruth Duerr, Ron Weaver, Bob Downs, Matt Mayernik, Jeff Arnfield, Erin Robinson
+
Participants: Ruth Duerr, Ron Weaver, Bob Downs, Matt Mayernik, Jeff Arnfield, Erin Robinson, Carol Meyer
  
 
* Review action items
 
* Review action items
** Ruth - breadcrumbs on the module. Name on each slide in upper left corner is sufficient.  
+
** Ruth - breadcrumbs on the module. Name on each slide in upper left corner is sufficient. (closed)
** Erin - Created email for questions related to short course  
+
** Erin - Created email for questions related to short course (closed)
** New actions - Ruth add email and version to template
+
** Ruth - Drafted author guidelines. (closed)
** Ruth - Drafted author guidelines.  
+
* Workshop update?
* Workshop update? - Ruth needs to follow-up. Early career scienctist workshop seems to be a go.
 
 
** AGU status?  
 
** AGU status?  
* Modules status
+
* Modules status  
** New Action: Erin email group when clarify identifier issue.
 
 
* Review author's guide
 
* Review author's guide
 
** Ruth created the author's guide  
 
** Ruth created the author's guide  
Line 15: Line 13:
 
*** don't want module titles and what's on the wiki to to diverge
 
*** don't want module titles and what's on the wiki to to diverge
 
*** In general reference - add style guide for references - AGU/AMS style guide
 
*** In general reference - add style guide for references - AGU/AMS style guide
**** New Action: Matt Mayernik is looking into options
 
 
* Discuss module review process
 
* Discuss module review process
 
** Review Criteria:
 
** Review Criteria:
Line 25: Line 22:
 
**** Undergraduate level or general college level  
 
**** Undergraduate level or general college level  
 
**** reasonably simple for non expert to understand
 
**** reasonably simple for non expert to understand
*** ACTION: Ruth will add what review criteria will be
 
 
** Review Process:  
 
** Review Process:  
 
*** review board
 
*** review board
Line 37: Line 33:
 
* Schedule - October 15 for draft
 
* Schedule - October 15 for draft
 
* Stipend/Honorarium - $100 If we think we need someone to edit/vet these may be good to pay.  
 
* Stipend/Honorarium - $100 If we think we need someone to edit/vet these may be good to pay.  
** Could UIUC students review? Action: Ruth will follow-up on this topic.  
+
** Could UIUC students review?  
 +
* Actions
 +
** Ruth add contact email and version to template and upload to the wiki
 +
** Erin email group when clarify identifier issue.  
 
** Carol - Action for Glossary.
 
** Carol - Action for Glossary.
 +
** Ruth will follow-up on involving UIUC Students
 +
** Carol will follow-up on NOAA NESDIS reviewers
 +
** Bob Downs volunteered to review
 +
** Ruth will add review criteria to author guidelines
 +
** Matt Mayernik is looking into options for reference style guidelines and report back with a few options
 +
** Carol will report back when AGU side meeting is confirmed.

Latest revision as of 11:24, September 15, 2011

Participants: Ruth Duerr, Ron Weaver, Bob Downs, Matt Mayernik, Jeff Arnfield, Erin Robinson, Carol Meyer

  • Review action items
    • Ruth - breadcrumbs on the module. Name on each slide in upper left corner is sufficient. (closed)
    • Erin - Created email for questions related to short course (closed)
    • Ruth - Drafted author guidelines. (closed)
  • Workshop update?
    • AGU status?
  • Modules status
  • Review author's guide
    • Ruth created the author's guide
      • 10 slides - does it include shell or content? ~ 7 body pages per module
      • don't want module titles and what's on the wiki to to diverge
      • In general reference - add style guide for references - AGU/AMS style guide
  • Discuss module review process
    • Review Criteria:
      • Add to author's guide what review process
      • Want to make sure the content is balanced, concise and complete
      • Conforms to author's guide
      • Reasonable ref check
      • Understandability/Simplicity - to non-expert (right level of details)
        • Undergraduate level or general college level
        • reasonably simple for non expert to understand
    • Review Process:
      • review board
      • Blind peer-review
      • Blind review within the board
      • Bob Downs volunteered to help review.
      • Each module reviewed by one other person and need a way to track that.
      • Reviewers can make changes; evolve as we go w/ questions.
      • When modules are nearly set - running them by NOAA for review.
        • NESDIS Headquarters -EDMC (Jeff DLB/Lewis)
  • Schedule - October 15 for draft
  • Stipend/Honorarium - $100 If we think we need someone to edit/vet these may be good to pay.
    • Could UIUC students review?
  • Actions
    • Ruth add contact email and version to template and upload to the wiki
    • Erin email group when clarify identifier issue.
    • Carol - Action for Glossary.
    • Ruth will follow-up on involving UIUC Students
    • Carol will follow-up on NOAA NESDIS reviewers
    • Bob Downs volunteered to review
    • Ruth will add review criteria to author guidelines
    • Matt Mayernik is looking into options for reference style guidelines and report back with a few options
    • Carol will report back when AGU side meeting is confirmed.