|
|
| (116 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | __TOC__
| + | === NOW: Program Committee working notes === |
| | | | |
| − | === Attendees===
| + | Working Notes are on a Google DOC: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I_Mr_IXFUObJFizxgOVETFHai6vv5iE32kX8h_uGUso/edit?usp=sharing ESIP Program Committee Working Notes] |
| − | * Denise Hills, Nomination Committee
| |
| − | * Ken Keiser, Chair, C&B
| |
| − | * Ethan Davis, Chair, IT&I
| |
| − | * Christine White, Chair, Products and Services
| |
| − | * Erin Robinson, Staff
| |
| − | * Annie Burgess, Staff
| |
| − | * Emily Law, Vice President
| |
| − | * Justin Goldstein, Chair, Data Stewardship
| |
| − | * Bill Teng, FiCom
| |
| − | * LuAnn Dahlman, Education
| |
| − | * Ted Habermann, Type III Rep
| |
| − | * Peter Fox, President
| |
| − | * Tom Narock, Semantic Web Cluster Rep
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Executive Committee Business ===
| |
| − | # Peter welcomes everyone to September.
| |
| − | #: Introduces Tom Narcok, representative from the Semantic Web Cluster.
| |
| − | # Tom N. stated:
| |
| − | #:* The Semantic Web Cluster came to the consensus to evolve from a cluster to a committee.
| |
| − | #:* Semantic web technologies as a whole have come to a point of maturity where they have permeated the ESIP community.
| |
| − | #:* The proposal to become a committee is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/175d6RLBAkgMBAY1C6A6lZiYSeo2s4Dul-osG2sfr94E/edit?usp=sharing
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Discussion about a Semantic Technologies Committee ===
| |
| − | #:* Ken C.: C&B is trying to keep the specific mission/information about committees pretty general, i.e. not getting into meeting times etc.
| |
| − | #:* Ken C.: Agrees with Tom's assessment of the broad adoption of Semantic Technology and thinks moving to a committee would be a good next step.
| |
| − | #:* Peter F.: There haven’t been significant changes in how committees report and meet. We might want to have C&B take a look at those. In terms of the strategic action, re: a Semantic Technologies Committee, it used to be that committees had more access to funding and higher visibility. However, with the changes to the finance committee, that funding issue is not the same.
| |
| − | #:* Erin R.: When people look at ESIP as Committees as broad umbrellas, brining Semantic Technologies up to that level give a chance for people to see what’s going on thematically.
| |
| − | #:* Peter F.: If committees are strategic, we might want some of the committees to look internally at themselves and evaluate their scope.
| |
| − | #:* Christine W.: Excited about the possibility of a Semantic web committee. Having some of the concepts and projects they have done to touch other parts of ESIP and enable them, it would be neat to see some of the Semantic enablement to come into our Testbed work.
| |
| − | #:* Justin G.: Really excite about the idea of a Semantic web committee. It would help to see a bit more of the specificity of how the semantics could integrate with other ESIP clusters. We have had a similar type of discussion within DS, ‘what is our domain of data stewardship?'
| |
| − | #:* Tom N.: To follow up on that, one big item from SM is a strategic vision and roadmap for the next 3-5 years. Continued discussion of what we would like to do inside ESIP and outside of ESIP with other organizations. Continued discussion about Semantic Portal being used by EarthCube and other groups. The strategic vision is a living evolving document .
| |
| − | #:* Justin G: What is the rational behind the proposed name change?
| |
| − | #:* Tom N.: Tom: Moving to semantic technologies is more general and open ended. Covers technology component and socio technology components as well.
| |
| − | #:* Emily L.: Good time to take a look back at the strategic plan, will there be changes on the other collaborative areas relative to the strategic plan. Look at the strategic plan in light of the semantic web becoming a semantic web cluster. Will the actions have to be updated as a committee. (Tom will review)
| |
| − | #:* Ethan D.: Are there other technologies that should have more of a voice and are as mature as Semantic technologies? How does this fit in? What else is out there that should fit in in this way? What is IT&I's roll as more technologies come in at the committee level?
| |
| − | #:* Peter F.: There might be others that we might want to strategically edge forward. I believe it is the roll of ExCom to look at some of these leadership issues. Introduce the idea of collaboration between committees. Web services cluster is re-starting based on some discussions during the summer meeting. Maybe one of the rolls of IT&I is to look at the collaboration areas from the technology point of view.
| |
| − | #:* Ethan D.: I’d like IT&I to be more on the outreach side. Need champions to move tech forward.
| |
| − | #:* Bill T.: To have a larger view from the top is advantageous to pulling groups together, rather than bottom up relying on the individual groups. Its not from the ESIP strategic point of view, it is from the point of view of the Ag&Climate and Energy & Climate to want to work together. Having that larger point of view helps the individual members see how each group relates to each other. Possibly a graphic representation of those relationships.
| |
| − | #:* Ted H.: Seems to remember many ESIP meetings where Peter and Rob would spend intense work sessions on improving the SWEET ontology. I’m always a proponent of working across groups. Is SWEET unfinished business that this committee could work on and ESIP could take a position .
| |
| − | #:* Peter F.: SWEET is a good example of the slow progress of what ESIP is. Strategically, it is something we, ESIP leadership, should consolidate as a legacy.
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Approval of August Minutes ===
| |
| − | # Approval of [[Draft Excom Minutes|August Minutes]]
| |
| − | #:* Denise motioned to approve Minutes as amended and Emily seconded. The minutes were approved by acclamation.
| |
| − | === Strategic plan executive summary ===
| |
| − | # Motion to put forward the strategic plan summary to vote.
| |
| − | #:* Denise H. moves to put it to a vote.
| |
| − | #:* Justin G. seconds.
| |
| − | # Strategic Plan Summary opens to discussion:
| |
| − | #:* No discussion, no abstentions. '''Approved.'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Additional discussion on Semantic Committee ===
| |
| − | # When does the change in designation occur? Does there need to be a change to bylaws to have person sit on ExCom?
| |
| − | #:* Peter: Once put forward by ExCom, there is still a 30-day period before it can go to a vote with the General Assembly. Constitution and Bylaws changes will be required. We should arrange the changes in C&B to go out with the Committee vote.
| |
| − | #:* Erin R.: The language around the Executive Committee does not need to change. As soon as we add the next committee to the bylaws, we only need to update 5.1.
| |
| − | #:* Peter F.: In the interim, the president can appoint chairs in committees until such time as the election occurs.
| |
| − | # Peter F. calls for a motion. The motion could be one of two motions: 1) Not sending the Semantic Technologies proposal to the Assembly for a vote and 2) sending the Semantic Technologies proposal to the assembly pending some minor modifications, 30-day period and collaboration with C&B with their amendments.
| |
| − | #:* Ken: “I move that we move forward with promoting the Semantic Technologies Committee through the appropriate channels, the 30-day waiting period and then ultimately an electronic vote on the approval by the general assembly.”
| |
| − | #:* Before getting a second,between Peter, Annie, Erin, and Emily we will agree on your wording and confirm with you the person that is about to potentially second it.
| |
| − | #:* Denise H. seconds.
| |
| − | #:* Ken made a motion to move forward with promoting the Semantic Technologies Committee through the appropriate channels, the 30-day waiting period and then ultimately an electronic vote on the approval by the general assembly.” With no abstentions, we will move forward.
| |
| − | | |
| − | === President's Report ===
| |
| − | # Lots of good feedback on State of the Federation.
| |
| − | # Will call Denise about nominations for awards.
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Staff Report ===
| |
| − | # Erin R: There will be an ESIP/FES budget meeting on September 15th and Erin would like to have a special meeting devoted to the budget during a second call this month. We will skip additional staff reports in the interest of time.
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Committee Notes ===
| |
| − | # Partnership: The ESIP partnership committee is starting on two additional tasks that came out of our strategic plan: (1) Update the ESIP members join page; and (2) Identify gaps in membership and target opportunities (recommendation).
| |
| − | # Education: We're exploring the idea of building a finite series of professional development experiences around a single theme (drones, for instance). Our goal is to build awareness, skills, and knowledge about data science among educators through interaction with data scientists and hands-on experiences. We also plan to explore the possibilities of securing some funding for this through private foundations.
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Action Items ===
| |
| − | # Look at the strategic plan in light of the semantic web becoming a semantic web cluster. Will the actions have to be updated as a committee. (Tom N. will review)
| |
| − | # Add something to next agenda about other technologies to promote.
| |
| − | # Confirm Ken's language on Semantic Committee motion.
| |
