Difference between revisions of "ESIP Partnership May Telecon (3:30PM EDT)"
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
*Update on Partnership questions regarding a possible survey to cover: | *Update on Partnership questions regarding a possible survey to cover: | ||
** number of member voting reps/size of member organization, is there interest in | ** number of member voting reps/size of member organization, is there interest in | ||
− | **when should smaller units of large organizations be encouraged to apply as a members / Does being a member of a large organization and only having one voting rep cause problems among multiple organizational subunits? | + | **when should smaller units of large organizations be encouraged to apply as a members / Does being a member of a large organization and only having one voting rep cause problems among multiple organizational subunits?<br /> |
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | *Other related topics: | ||
+ | **Strategic Plan for 2017? | ||
+ | **How will Committee SOP's play into overall P&P governance document? (question for Bruce) | ||
Revision as of 13:13, May 8, 2017
Back to Partnership -- The following applications have been posted for review by the Partnership Committee
Telecon: Monday 8 May 20 3:30 - 4:30PM EDT
Call In Details:
Please join from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/168308485
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States +1 (646) 749-3131
Access Code: 168-308-485
Agenda
Old business:
- Review of previous call's Action Items:
- All: Review apps, jot down any concerns, identify any incomplete applications, etc.
- Danie: Investigate partnership survey with Erin, Bruce, etc.
- Danie will check with Viv on new meeting time and communicate to Annie.
New Business:
- Membership application review status
- Thanks to all who reviewed applications! Seven new member apps are out for 30 day assembly review.
- Thanks to all who reviewed applications! Seven new member apps are out for 30 day assembly review.
- Request from Bruce to invite three 'historical DAACs' to become ESIP members
- OB.DAAC (Ocean Biology)
- CDDIS (Crustal Dynamics)
- LAADS (MODIS Level 1 and Atmosphere Archiving and Distribution System)
- Update on Partnership questions regarding a possible survey to cover:
- number of member voting reps/size of member organization, is there interest in
- when should smaller units of large organizations be encouraged to apply as a members / Does being a member of a large organization and only having one voting rep cause problems among multiple organizational subunits?
- Other related topics:
- Strategic Plan for 2017?
- How will Committee SOP's play into overall P&P governance document? (question for Bruce)
Meeting Minutes / Notes
Present:
- Request from Bruce to invite three 'historical DAACs' to become ESIP members
POC’s and contact information for the three DAACs above:
CDDIS
- Carey Noll, DAAC Manager, 301-614-6542, carey.e.noll@nasa.gov
- Dr. Patrick Michael, DAAC Deputy Manager, 301-614-5370, patrick.michael@nasa.gov
LAADS
- Edward Masuoka, DAAC Manager, 301-614-5515, edward.j.masuoka@nasa.gov
- Bhaskar Ramachandran, DAAC Scientist, 301-614-5460, bhaskar.ramachandran@nasa.gov
OB.DAAC
- Dr. Gene Feldman, DAAC Manager, 301-286-9428, gene.c.feldman@nasa.gov
- Sean Bailey, DAAC Deputy Manager, 301-286-3931, sean.w.bailey@nasa.gov
- Update on Partnership questions regarding a possible survey to cover:
Previous Call Notes
Application questions from last call- survey exploration
- Do we encourage one application for an entire organization (i.e., EPA) or do we encourage individual labs/divisions/departments to become members? There may be pros and cons to smaller divisional representation with respect to travel authorization to ESIP meetings, and competitive perspectives on voting representation.
- How do we decide if a single voting rep is sufficiently representing the entire organization or a smaller subset? Entire organizational membership is a more welcoming situation for inclusiveness, however the broader organization membership may result in dilution of the benefits of ESIP participation to the individual department/division/lab.
- Can we get clarification (from ESIP) on how these reps relate to the broader organization? Is there interest in seeing a voting rep:organizational size ratio determined? Or, Possibly edit current application text to include language to indicate that membership of a large organization implies inclusiveness to all organizational members (across departments/divisions/labs)?
- How do we decide if a single voting rep is sufficiently representing the entire organization or a smaller subset? Entire organizational membership is a more welcoming situation for inclusiveness, however the broader organization membership may result in dilution of the benefits of ESIP participation to the individual department/division/lab.
Perhaps develop a survey for voting reps (targeting larger organizations) - any issues as a single voting rep of a large organization- such a survey could establish demographics and identify any issues related to voting representation. Danie will investigate with Erin, Bruce, etc.