ESIP Partnership May Telecon (3:30PM EDT)
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.
- How is Assembly feedback handled? (question for Bruce)
- How is Assembly feedback handled? (question for Bruce)
- 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? Not necessary for Partnership.
- How will Committee SOP's play into overall P&P governance document? (question for Bruce)
larger P&P document will have appendix for each Committee to include their internal SOPs action Danie will create template for group contribution
Meeting Minutes / Notes
Present: Danie, Bruce, Nancy
- "Review of current membership applications"
How to find new members at meetings? at plenary, first timers are identified, then new members are asked to stand, to identify themselves. Encourage new members to be active on social media to connect. Can also match-make through registration. Bruce to bring this to Visioneers.
Assembly feedback doesn't necessarily need to get carried up the chain, unless problems persist
- 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:
Bruce: example - anyone in noaa can be a member in terms of getting a member rate. Member rates are really the largest concern. NASA has 17 voting reps. (NOAA has 3; USGS has 2). Voting rep. number hasn't been historically been a problem. We could have an informal policy welcoming any formal group or subgroup to be a member. Membership needs to be active to vote (1 member at 1 meeting in last 4 meetings to receive voting representation). Possibly revisit inactive membership after summer meeting.
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.
