Difference between revisions of "Draft Excom Minutes"

Revision as of 12:50, October 7, 2011

ESIP Federation Executive Committee, September 8, 2011

Attendees: Chris Lenhardt, Bruce Caron, Karl Benedict, Ken Keiser, Rob Raskin, Chuck Hutchinson, Annette Schloss, Ruth Duerr (Guest), Stefan Falke, Steve Berrick, Erin Robinson, Carol Meyer

The meeting was called to order by President Chris Lenhardt at 2:05 pm EDT.
1. Adoption of Minutes The minutes were amended with some clarifying language. A motion was made to adopt by Chris Lenhardt, with Karl Benedict offering a second. The amended minutes were adopted by acclamation.
2. Data Stewardship Sharing Principles
At the 2011 Winter meeting, the ESIP Assembly asked the ExCom to look at draft principles. Ruth Duerr, primary author of the draft principles was on the call to provide an overview.
Discussion:

Ruth Duerr:

Some angst about the ESIP Federation getting involved since many member organizations already have own guidelines.
Formatting of document made it difficult to read and understand subsidiarity of points.
Commercial providers thought this was important for ESIP to do in order to add credibility to its efforts.
Principles are not binding, rather, they are guidelines.

Discussion ensued about whether the principles should be called 'guidelines' and requested the Constitution and Bylaws Committee to review the draft. Additional discussion centered on the importance of the ESIP Federation making this statement as a data-centric organization. In addition, it was suggested that the draft be augmented with examples of members as principle exemplars, perhaps using clusters, committees and working groups to make these connections. Further discussion related to preserving the principles in a public place, the ESIP Commons and/or website, so that could be accessible and referenced by others.
Action: ExCom decided that the Data Sharing Guidelines are useful and referred to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee to review guidelines.

3. Report from DC Meetings

USDA – met Anne Bartuska, Jill Aubern – working on areas related to sustainability and looking at data standards and interoperability; Also life cycle analysis; Follow-up to encourage winter meeting participation. Potential for collaborations w/ watershed data; Curious about engagements with GEO. Applied areas – forest management; agg tied to water and back to NASA applied science. Facilitating connections.
NSF – Good meeting with Cliff Jacobs. Knowledge mgmt system is of interest. ESIP has been mentioned in EarthCube. Cliff suggested that they are getting pushback b/c approach to EarthCube is unsettling that it is open. Recognize key groups that need to be involved and ESIP Is one of those. ESIP is potential place to have discussions and coordination. NSF will post white papers soon. Charretts are Nov. 1-4. Fund EAGER awards. May 2012 would bring groups together to launch the program – 10 year program 100 mill in infrastructure – 10 years there will be better infrastructure. Getting away from competition. Not swayed by current fiscal climate
- Rob – Concern – take $ away from existing elements. How onboard are the rest of geosciences?
- Chris Viewing as experiment;
- Carol – Challenged Cliff on language. NSF interested in understanding how it works with NASA; Martha on inter-agency for data and aware of efforts. No archives and trying to address things – not sure they want to archive.
NOAA TPIO – Jeff deLaBeaujardiere, Lewis Mcculloch, Matt Austin – NOAA has a new grant that links OpenDap and Unidata; DARWG connections; Data Doc initiative
NOAA NESDIS Meeting: Met with Patrica Huff and Nina Jackson. They gave lay of land; Chris/Carol Looking to brief upper level NOAA Mgmt; Need justification for budget. Working to minimize cuts.
NASA (Applied Sciences) – Met with Lawrence Friedl and discussed the Evaluation workshop at the upcoming Winter Meeting.
CDI meeting – Met Kevin Galliger at the CDI meeting and gave him a 1 page document on ESIP. He was excited to get involved and couldn't see any reason USGS/CDI would not to participate.

4. Update on Partner Recognition –
Current have Martha Maiden and Falkenburg Awards to recognize lifetime career achievements and early career achievements.
New suggested awards:

President’s award – significant contributions from previous year
Organization recognition – best collaboration

Discussion: Could give multiple awards; structure flexible; not a laundry list to diminish work. Group awards may diminish effort.
Action – Annette will update award sent to group to incorporate obs/comments and ExCom will make formal recommendation thumbs up/down and then solicit noms in Oct.
5. General Information:

New Partners – Four new ESIP members; All welcomed; engaged… A next class for the fall.
Moore Foundation – Telecon last week on Data Intensive Science. Great opportunity; like what ESIP does as potential inputers to engage. Expecting a lot from us – kicking around focused ESIP suggestions. Mention ESIP. Moore Project manager put in touch with similar domain. Could we package the lessons learned – could it be sold?
Winter Meeting – Visioneers meeting next week. Talking theme/process for abstracts/speakers

6. Other Business

Ken – Submitted RFP for testbed and expecting responses; Putting together configuration board – reps from areas of ESIP; Bigger than P&S. Don’t know how to move ahead creating that. Time sensitive. Semantic it&I, discovery, stewardship, IQ, admin
ESA Meeting – anything could make use of? Eco could make a difference and be proactive in… Ask for evangalism from others group.

The meeting adjourned at 3:12 EDT.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 At the 2011 Winter meeting, the ESIP Assembly asked the ExCom to look at draft principles. Ruth Duerr, primary author of the draft principles was on the call to provide an overview. <br>
 Discussion:
-* Ruth: Some angst about federation getting involved since many orgs already have own guidelines. Tech difficulties due to format. Not all items have #s and not clear which items were subsidiary to other items. Some groups (commercial) suggested that federation do this to add credibility. Section 2 – value add providers had most comments.
+* Ruth Duerr:
-* Chris: Discussion recall that principles were proscriptive or recommendation
+:*Some angst about the ESIP Federation getting involved since many member organizations already have own guidelines.
-* Ruth – Never intended to be binding or restrictive.
+:*Formatting of document made it difficult to read and understand subsidiarity of points.
-* Annette – Name change -> guidelines?
+:*Commercial providers thought this was important for ESIP to do in order to add credibility to its efforts.
-* Chris – ESIP should have guidelines doc – yes/no then C&B can evaluate this doc if it’s a yes.
+:*Principles are not binding, rather, they are guidelines.
-* Karl – Is important statement for ESIP Federation to make given data-centric nature of the organization. Stefan – important as well. Strengthened if it was augmented through exemplar members –reference implementation or examples. Chris – work back to clusters to annotate this tying resources and examples together. Steve Berrick – Version pushed to public website. Opportunity for other groups to reference. Need way to cite and push to website. Chris – official thing on website valuable for reputation. Karl – periodic bake-out version of this very useful. Carol – The guidelines could be preserved in ESIP Commons. <br>
+<br>
-Action: ExCom decided that the Data Sharing Guidelines are useful and referred to C&B to review guidelines.<br>
+Discussion ensued about whether the principles should be called 'guidelines' and requested the Constitution and Bylaws Committee to review the draft. Additional discussion centered on the importance of the ESIP Federation making this statement as a data-centric organization. In addition, it was suggested that the draft be augmented with examples of members as principle exemplars, perhaps using clusters, committees and working groups to make these connections. Further discussion related to preserving the principles in a public place, the ESIP Commons and/or website, so that could be accessible and referenced by others.
+<br>
+'''Action: ExCom decided that the Data Sharing Guidelines are useful and referred to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee to review guidelines.'''<br>
 . Report from DC Meetings
 * USDA – met Anne Bartuska, Jill Aubern – working on areas related to sustainability and looking at data standards and interoperability; Also life cycle analysis; Follow-up to encourage winter meeting participation. Potential for collaborations w/ watershed data; Curious about engagements with GEO. Applied areas – forest management; agg tied to water and back to NASA applied science. Facilitating connections.