Difference between revisions of "Draft Excom Minutes"

Revision as of 11:36, March 6, 2010

Excom Meeting – February 11, 2010

Present: Brian Rogan Carol Meyer James Frew Marilyn Kaminski Annette Schloss Chris Lenhardt Karl Benedict Michael Goodman Patricia Huff Rob Raskin

The meeting was called to order at 2:04 PM

1. Adoption of Minutes The minutes were adopted by acclimation

Website Copyright Policy - next steps Brian discussed the changes made to the copyright policy statement after feedback from the meeting. Chris Lenhardt asked if other open source copyrights were looked at such as Berkeley open documentation. This wasn’t clear from the meeting notes, so any changes were based on the overall discussion. The consensus was that the idea is to try and take what Brian has written and make it a commonly accepted copyright framework.

Brian will “wordsmith” the policy to make it more neutral, after which it will be posted on the wiki so it can be worked on by the excom as a group. It will be in wiki text so that it can be edited before the next meeting.

IT&I Budget Review Karl presented the revised budget since Rahul was traveling and unable to call-in. • The idea was to create a package for outreach on operability standards along with case studies that would demonstrate their value. • It is targeted at people in the federation and is also an outreach product that could be used for presentations for agency partners. • It would consist of powerpoints, handouts, etc. that would be downloadable for anyone to use. • The primary focus is as an educational package.

The point was raised that should there be a review committee before it is posted? Is it possible to have a template for individuals in order to capture the most information?

It was felt that this was a good idea to fund. It was suggested that there be a review before the product is released. It was passed by acclimation.

Outstanding C&B/Partnership Issues At the last few meetings quorums have been a problem.

It was suggested that C&B work with the Partnership committee to come up with a better way to determine who is an active member.

It was asked if there a way to purge people from the rolls. There are currently about 70 active members but there are also issues with Voting representatives not being designated or attending.

One idea put forward would be to charge a modest amount of money which would be credited towards registration but would be an incentive to get them to the meeting.

There may be a need for a governance change. The constitution currently needs a two thirds vote to change a bylaw. The vote can also be electronic. The issue seems to be more of an attendance issue at the meetings.

Any options will go forward to the assembly after a discussion between partnership and C&B. Presently ideas are just being floated.

Carol suggested that there may be issues in the strategic plan may also need to be looked at as well.

Michael Goodman and Annette Schloss will have a brief telecon before bringing it to the two committees jointly. It is important to deal with the inactive member problem as the initial issue to resolve as a group.

Should we actively seek out new international partners? Rob Raskin reported on a meeting he attended that had a significant international attendance. His presentation was based on selling the federation, but that they felt that the federation was not welcoming to international partners.

Should we go out and recruit international members and can this be done given the needed resources such as video conferencing, telecons, etc. ?

An option might be to create a European version of ESIP. But do we need to solve our own membership issues before we can move onto an international component?

Could there be a hybrid where we could partner with a large organization ie ESA would then create their own group?

We are increasingly having international participation with the Air Quality group. This was due to participation in the Washington GEO meeting. They have had telecons and some collaborations and it seems to be working. Outreach would be a way to preach the ESIP gospel. In terms of membership and they want to join then, then we should let them do so.

There was an earlier set of outreach materials but we can develop one that we can post so that folks can make use of it for recruitment efforts.

Summer Meeting Carol gave a short synopsis of progress to date. • Visioneers has met twice and is putting together the template • They asked for a blessing for the proposed theme “Energy and Climate”. This was passed by acclimation. • Visioneers would also like the excom to identify a few years out the summer meeting locations in order to make the process easier. This would include the dates and send out feelers to ESIP all for location ideas. • We are looking for speaker ideas to pass through Carol • There was a need to create a meeting template in order to help with pre and post meeting objectives. • Still waiting for outcomes from track leads and a report will be forthcoming as well as be able to put out a white paper.

The next visioneers meeting is on Monday. There was participation on the call from people from UT and Northrup Grumman

Short Course for Data Stewardship - Update This is an information item. The conversation is continuing with NOAA for doing this in the summer of 2011. Scott Hausman has been the point person and a plan is being developed including an advisory committee.

Other Business

NOAA has announced the new climate service. It would be a good idea to have someone to discuss and give an overview at the meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 3:12 PM

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Executive_Committee |Back to Executive Committee Main Page]]
-====Excom Meeting – January 14, 2010====
+====Excom Meeting – February 11, 2010====
 Present:
+Brian Rogan
+Carol Meyer
+James Frew
+Marilyn Kaminski
+Annette Schloss
+Chris Lenhardt
+Karl Benedict
+Michael Goodman
+Patricia Huff
+Rob Raskin
+The meeting was called to order at 2:04 PM
+.	Adoption of Minutes
+The minutes were adopted by acclimation
+	'''Website Copyright Policy - next steps'''
+Brian discussed the changes made to the copyright policy statement after feedback from the meeting.
+Chris Lenhardt asked if other open source copyrights were looked at such as Berkeley open documentation.  This wasn’t clear from the meeting notes, so any changes were based on the overall discussion.
+The consensus was that the idea is to try and take what Brian has written and make it a commonly accepted copyright framework.
+Brian will “wordsmith” the policy to make it more neutral, after which it will be posted on the wiki so it can be worked on by the excom as a group.  It will be in wiki text so that it can be edited before the next meeting.
-Carol Meyer			Marilyn Kaminski
+	'''IT&I Budget Review'''
-Brian Rogan			Rahul Ramachadran
+Karl presented the revised budget since Rahul was traveling and unable to call-in.
-Steve Berrick			Margaret Mooney
+•	The idea was to create a package for outreach on operability standards along with case studies that would demonstrate their value.
-James Frew			Chris Lenhardt
+•	 It is targeted at people in the federation and is also an outreach product that could be used for presentations for agency partners.
-Rob Raskin			Michael Goodman
+•	 It would consist of powerpoints, handouts, etc. that would be downloadable for anyone to use.
-Patricia Huff			Chuck Hutchinson
+•	The primary focus is as an educational package.
-'''1. Adoption of Minutes'''
+The point was raised that should there be a review committee before it is posted?  Is it possible to have a template for individuals in order to capture the most information?
+It was felt that this was a good idea to fund.  It was suggested that there be a review before the product is released.   It was passed by acclimation.
-Meeting called to order at 2:06 PM
-Two sets of minutes  needed approval.
-Chris Lenhard raised a point of clarification for the november meeting which was subsequently adjusted.
-Chris Lenhardt made a motion to adopt and Marilyn Kaminski seconded.  There were no objections and the minutes were adopted by acclamation.
-'''2. Committe Budget Adoption'''
+''' Outstanding C&B/Partnership Issues'''
+At the last few meetings quorums have been a problem.
-Carol Meyer reported that the Executive Committee in principle approved the committee budgets as they were drafted but were not officially adopted pending resolution on the infrastructure policy question.
+It was suggested that C&B work with the Partnership committee to come up with a better way to determine who is an active member.
-There currently are two committees, Education and IT&I that are eager to move forward on their work plans.  It was recommended by Carol that the budgets be voted on today so that committees could move forward with their workplans.
+It was asked if there a way to purge people from the rolls.  There are currently about 70 active members but there are also issues with Voting representatives not being designated or attending.
-Margaret Mooney began by describing the education budget request.   Monies already in the budget can be used for funding events such as the SACNAS program attended by Tamara Ledley. President Frew put forward a motion that the budget amount be approved and that the budget be rewritten to reflect the new use of the funds.
+One idea put forward would be to charge a modest amount of money which would be credited towards registration but would be an incentive to get them to the meeting.
-Michael Goodman put forward a motion to accept the request, Marilyn Kaminski seconded.  It was approved by acclamation.
+There may be a need for a governance change.  The constitution currently needs a two thirds vote to change a bylaw. The vote can also be electronic.  The issue seems to be more of an attendance issue at the meetings.
-Rahul Ramachandran described the IT&I budget that was submitted by Karl Benedict, the previous chair of the committee.
+Any options will go forward to the assembly after a discussion between partnership and C&B.  Presently ideas are just being floated.
-It was felt by the excom that the proposal was good but that required more clarity as to how the monies requested would be spent before it could be approved.
-There were no representatives from Air Quality so Carol Meyer gave the overview.   One stipulation that the Executive Committee placed on the budget was a requirement to find matching funds for the interoperability workshop being proposed. Gary Foley of EPA has matched the $20K that is needed. There was some concern that the amount they were asking for was high but there is recognition that the AQ Working Group has been a bright spot for the ESIP Federation.
+Carol suggested that there may be issues in the strategic plan may also need to be looked at as well.
-A larger conversation ensued over how conference costs, travel etc. were allocated, especially for speakers.
+Michael Goodman and Annette Schloss will have a brief telecon before bringing it to the two committees jointly.
-It was felt that there should be some sort of codification of how it is determined as to what fees were waived and for whom.
+It is important  to deal with the inactive member problem as the initial issue to resolve as a group.
-Rob Raskin moved to adopt, Marilyn Kaminski seconded.  The budget was adopted by acclamation.
+Should we actively seek out new international partners?
+Rob Raskin reported on a meeting he attended that had a significant international attendance.  His presentation was based on selling the federation, but that they felt that the federation was not welcoming to international partners.
-'''3. Winter Meeting Debrief'''
+Should we go out and recruit international members and can this be done given the needed resources such as video conferencing, telecons, etc. ?
+An option might be to create a European version of ESIP. But do we need to solve our own membership issues before we can move onto an international component?
-The Winter meeting was considered successful.  On the last day there were still over 100 people in attendance which is not historically what has happened.    There was a definite interest in the joint wrap up session, which was not as well organized as it could have been.  At the DC meeting, attendance is boosted by the large number of local attendees.
+Could there be a hybrid where we could partner with a large organization ie ESA would then create their own group?
-*There was a sense that the joint session could have had a stronger focus.   There had been themes in the past but this is first meeting that a theme had been well developed.
+We are increasingly having international participation with the Air Quality group.  This was due to participation in the Washington GEO meeting.  They have had telecons and some collaborations and it seems to be working.
-*The question was raised on whether or not it be worth doing proceedings or other ways to document the work being done, possibly an analysis of the meeting's outcomes.
+Outreach would be a way to preach the ESIP gospel.  In terms of membership and they want to join then, then we should let them do so.
-*It was felt that having a post meeting documentation of what happened and an analysis of how effective it was to meet the pre meeting objectives.
-*A suggestion was made that Carol and Brian put together a meeting planning template that will help outline goals, objectives and outcomes for each meeting.
-The problem of making a quorum was addressed.   There is a plan by the Constitution and Bylaws Committee that the governance plan be looked at very closely.  It was felt that there will be a need for a bylaws change in time for the summer meeting in order to resolve this problem.
+There was an earlier set of outreach materials but we can develop one that we can post so that folks can make use of it for recruitment efforts.
-*Carol suggested that it might be worth looking at the strategic plan and look a little deeper as this issue is addressed.
+'''Summer Meeting'''
-*Rob Raskin brought up the idea that it may be that the organizations may no longer exist or that we no longer meet their needs.
+Carol gave a short synopsis of progress to date.
-*It was determined that this issue needs to be brought up as an excom item for discussion.
+•	Visioneers has met twice and is putting together the template
+•	They asked for a blessing for the proposed theme “Energy and Climate”. This was passed by acclimation.
+•	 Visioneers would also like the excom to identify a few years out the summer meeting locations in order to make the process easier.  This would include the dates and send out feelers to ESIP all for location ideas.
+•	We are looking for speaker ideas to pass through Carol
+•	There was a need to create a meeting template in order to help with pre and post meeting objectives.
+•	 Still waiting for outcomes from track leads and a report will be forthcoming as well as be able to put out a white paper.
+The next visioneers meeting is on Monday. There was participation on the call from people from UT and Northrup Grumman
-There was a concern about the poster session space.   Most of the issue seemed to resolve around space and the historically high number of poster and demos which were presented.
+'''Short Course for Data Stewardship - Update'''
+This is an information item.   The conversation is continuing with NOAA for doing this in the summer of 2011.  Scott Hausman has been the point person and a plan is being developed including an advisory committee.
-'''4. Other Business'''
+ '''Other Business'''
+NOAA has announced the new climate service.  It would be a good idea to have someone to discuss and give an overview at the meeting.
-There was no other business to be discussed.   Steve Berrick motioned to adjourn, Marilyn Kaminski seconded.  The meeting was adjourned at 2:54 PM
+Meeting adjourned at 3:12 PM