Difference between revisions of "Draft Excom Minutes"

Revision as of 16:46, November 17, 2015

Attendees

Denise Hills, Chair, Nomination Committee
Ken Keiser, Chair, C&B
Ethan Davis, Chair, IT&I
Christine White, Chair, Products and Services
Erin Robinson, Staff
Annie Burgess, Staff
Rebecca Fowler, Staff
Emily Law, Vice President
Justin Goldstein, Chair, Data Stewardship
Bill Teng, Chair, FiCom
Tyler Stevens, Partnership
Ted Habermann, Type III Rep
Steven Richard, Type II Rep
Danie Kinkade, Type I Rep
Peter Fox, President

Approval of October Minutes

Approval of October Minutes
- Christine motioned to approve Minutes and Justin seconded. The minutes were approved by acclamation.

President's Report

Peter F., Erin R. and Rebecca F. are in attendance at GEO.
Strong expression of interest from NOAA in the ESIP testbed relative to the assessment of technology readiness. NOAA is impressed with ESIP’s approach.
We have new student fellows for 2016 and we are actively looking for ways to acknowledge our current students fellows. Get in touch with Annie about ideas for acknowledgement or if you have questions about the process of selecting fellows.

ESIP/FES Relationship

Peter F. received a message from the president of the FES board and after discussions with the FES attorney and Erin R., they concluded the conditions leading to the split of the Federation and Foundation were a mistake. There as in fact no conflict of interest between FES and ESIP, which changes the options for the relationship between FES and ESIP. There are many consequences of this. Peter F.’s two action items after these conversations are:

Bring this issues to the ESIP ExCom
Talk to the ESIP legal council for a second opinion and seek guidance.

Peter will report back to ExCom with a possible list of actions.

Questions/Comments

(JG) Is the legal council for ESIP on retainer?
- (PF) The Federation does NOT retain legal council. When FES/ESIP MOU was discussed, we did seek legal council.
(BT) What was the original basis for the conflict of interest? What has changed?
- (ER) The original reason for going to the lawyer was because ESIP was interested in forming relationships with other organizations. The Lawyer presumed there was a conflict of interest where people were getting paid AND sitting on the board. The lawyer said it is illegal to be paid salary and sit on the board. The conflict of interest dissolved when the lawyer realized the people sitting on the board were NOT getting paid. Also, we couldn’t have our contract managers at NASA and NOAA sitting on the board.
- (PF) Compensation of travel for ExCom does NOT count for compensation.
(JG) How much, if any, is the mistake on the attorney’s part going to cost us?
- (PF) It will be a few thousand dollars – there is a line item in the budget for attorney. Unlikely to be that much. The foundation has to budget for legal council as well.
- (ER) The dual leadership has been incredibly expensive.
(PF) Possible implications. First, FES and ESIP would merge back together. What would the foundation board look like? One option would be a very small board, meaning President, VP and Type Reps (for example). That would mean the elected leadership would have different responsibilities. Peter many need to contact Denise and inform them of what they are signing up for. Secondary consequence, ESIP assembly will need to vote for organizational change.
(CW) Besides the expense of the two separate entities, where there benefits of the two orgs.
- (ER) All board members but one were ESIP people. We’d like some part of the board to be out looking, financial capabilities, business capabilities as the board is responsible for hiring/firing.
(DH) Difficult to identify leadership candidates that were non-feds.
- (ER) Our council will identify where exactly federal employees can participate.

(PF) Next step will go beyond ExCom to the entire membership. We will put up a wiki page and solicit comments.

ESIP Budget Introduction

Questions/Comments

(BT) Needed clarity on the 5 rolled-up items that are part of the $801K total.
(JG) What is the RFID? Is that the opt-in/opt-out thing?
- (ER) That is funding from the Sloan Foundation, which covers development, staff time, meeting app, equipment, i.e. the money is for the full project.
(JG) What about rent and office supply?
- (ER) Staff works remotely so we do not cover.
(JG) How do we pay the 7K in unallowable expense for drink tickets
- (PF) We receive revenue that become discretionary funds.
- (ER) 7K is drink tickets for 2 meetings and is paid for by registration funds, which are discretionary.
(ED) Are the organization cost and the ESIP total supposed to add up to the grand total?
- (ER) There are other unrelated projects that are being wrapped up.
(ED) Is there a mission difference between FES and ESIP?
- (PF) They are slightly different now, but would end the same if a merger takes place.

(PF) The spreadsheet will be cleaned up and it will go out for membership comment. This is an ExCom duty to approve the budget.

Staff Reports

Erin Robinson

Erin and Rebecca are at GEO this week.
Beginning of a relationship with GEO.
Erin was at the regional hub meeting where ESIP was mentioned as a spoke.
Has been spending a lot of time on the ESIP/Foundation relationship.

Annie Burgess

Technology evaluation final reports are due November 17 - everyone has stated they will be on time.
Announced the “Frontiers in Earth Sciences Big Data” theme at IEEE Big Data in Geosciences workshop.
Meet with AIST PIs at JPL.
Will present on ESIP Tech Evaluation at AGU.

Rebecca Fowler

Working on press release for new student fellows.
We’ll do an AGU media advisory for the first time that will highlight ESIP participation in AGU (Ignite, awards, booth).
12 Ignite speakers and more submissions that ever.
Ignite event at the Oceans meeting went really well.
Working on communication activities around the ESIP winter meeting.

Meeting Updates

Annie B. is working on the at-a-glance
We will need to consolidate sessions
NOAA is having its environmental data management meeting preceding the ESIP Winter Meeting and ESIP members are invited to its closing plenary
Summer Meeting locations:

University of New Hampshire: There is a train from the airport. 77 rooms near the University.
Friday Center, Chapel Hill: We have worked with Chamber of Commerce to shuttle folks from Franklin Street to the Friday center.

Questions/Comments

(CW) Staying near the center is important to socializing after/before. So, leaning towards NC.
(ER) All other things are equal, i.e. wireless, central breakout.
(JG) Are there any budgetary constraints.

(ER) They are both federal per diem room rates.

Committee Reports

FiCom (Bill): We have a draft announcement for request for budget. We need to clarify with Erin policy for labor. Within the committee itself we need to work on budget for travel for invited speakers.
Partnership (Tyler): Received a new member application for AGU. Will quickly review that this week and get out soon for 30-day review period. Also working on new text for ESIP member join page and membership experience gap analysis.
Stewardship (Justin): David Moroni from JPL gave a presentation on the data infrastructure at PO.DAAC on last telecon. Nancy Hobelheinrich and Jay Carlson have submitted a statement of interest in response to the USGS Community for Data Integration RFP. Discussion of holding a recap on the RDA plenary. Sara Ramdeen attended a talk on the French Minister on Technology talking about the differences between French and US law related to data. Mendeley is allowing identifiers. More details on DS wiki.
Ethan (IT&I): No November IT&I Rant and Rave.
Nominations (Denise): We have a comprehensive ballot in place subject to any changes that may come. Thanks to all for stepping up. Denise will write up a how-to for whomever does this next.
Products and Services (Christine): We have another testbed call out with Deadline December 1. TCB will review and notify. P&S has gotten ideas together for Winter Meeting. Funding Friday folks have been submitting sessions to the Winter Meeting.
Type I (Danie): Getting data repository people together using a common poster template together. Showing connectedness of repos within ESIP.
Type 2 (Steven): Nothing to report.
Type 3 (Ted): Nothing to report.

Other Business

Ken walked through: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TEhDx3yNH9paeFB_gwV5L3xdUGuzXb_my9rNinJQD1g/edit

All positive feedback on the document.
The topic that incited the most conversation was relative to improving the continuity of the officers.
Trying to make some decisions on where this type of information needs to go, i.e. not going into C&B.
Recommendation would be that if we decide to go with a 3-year term approach, we need to get some high-level information on what the roles of the president/past-president roles would be.

Peter F. suggested going back into the document and synthesizing comments. Federation bylaws would be translated into the Foundation bylaws. We might have to get this discussion completed quickly because of the potential merge.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 * Erin Robinson, Staff
 * Annie Burgess, Staff
+* Rebecca Fowler, Staff
 * Emily Law, Vice President
 * Justin Goldstein, Chair, Data Stewardship
 * Bill Teng, Chair, FiCom
-* LuAnn Dahlman, Chair, Education
+* Tyler Stevens, Partnership
 * Ted Habermann, Type III Rep
+* Steven Richard, Type II Rep
 * Danie Kinkade, Type I Rep
 * Peter Fox, President
-=== Approval of September Minutes ===
+=== Approval of October Minutes ===
-# Approval of [[Draft Excom Minutes|September Minutes]]
+# Approval of [[Draft Excom Minutes|October Minutes]]
-#:* Denise motioned to approve Minutes as amended and Christine seconded. The minutes were approved by acclamation.
+#:* Christine motioned to approve Minutes and Justin seconded. The minutes were approved by acclamation.
 === President's Report ===
-# RDA
+:* Peter F., Erin R. and Rebecca F. are in attendance at GEO.
-#:*In September 2016, the 8th RDA plenary (Denver, CO) is happening in conjunction with a Week of Data. ESIP could participate in some way.
+:* Strong expression of interest from NOAA in the ESIP testbed relative to the assessment of technology readiness. NOAA is impressed with ESIP’s approach.
-#:*RDA testbed discussions. ESIP could inform/share our experience with testbeds.
+:* We have new student fellows for 2016 and we are actively looking for ways to acknowledge our current students fellows.  Get in touch with Annie about ideas for acknowledgement or if you have questions about the process of selecting fellows.
-Comment on President’s Report:
+===ESIP/FES Relationship===
-:*(Ken) There are the beginnings of an EarthCube testbed that could be included in the discussion of an RDA testbed.
+Peter F. received a message from the president of the FES board and after discussions with the FES attorney and Erin R., they concluded the conditions leading to the split of the Federation and Foundation were a mistake. There as in fact no conflict of interest between FES and ESIP, which changes the options for the relationship between FES and ESIP. There are many consequences of this. Peter F.’s two action items after these conversations are:
-:*(Christine) How can we share testbed best practices?
+:* Bring this issues to the ESIP ExCom
+:* Talk to the ESIP legal council for a second opinion and seek guidance.
+Peter will report back to ExCom with a possible list of actions.
+==== Questions/Comments ====
+# (JG) Is the legal council for ESIP on retainer?
+#:* (PF) The Federation does NOT retain legal council. When FES/ESIP MOU was discussed, we did seek legal council.
+# (BT) What was the original basis for the conflict of interest? What has changed?
+#:* (ER) The original reason for going to the lawyer was because ESIP was interested in forming relationships with other organizations. The Lawyer presumed there was a conflict of interest where people were getting paid AND sitting on the board. The lawyer said it is illegal to be paid salary and sit on the board. The conflict of interest dissolved when the lawyer realized the people sitting on the board were NOT getting paid. Also, we couldn’t have our contract managers at NASA and NOAA sitting on the board.
+#:* (PF) Compensation of travel for ExCom does NOT count for compensation.
+# (JG) How much, if any, is the mistake on the attorney’s part going to cost us?
+#:* (PF) It will be a few thousand dollars – there is a line item in the budget for attorney. Unlikely to be that much. The foundation has to budget for legal council as well.
+#:* (ER) The dual leadership has been incredibly expensive.
+# (PF) Possible implications. First, FES and ESIP would merge back together. What would the foundation board look like? One option would be a very small board, meaning President, VP and Type Reps (for example). That would mean the elected leadership would have different responsibilities. Peter many need to contact Denise and inform them of what they are signing up for.  Secondary consequence, ESIP assembly will need to vote for organizational change.
+# (CW) Besides the expense of the two separate entities, where there benefits of the two orgs.
+#:* (ER) All board members but one were ESIP people. We’d like some part of the board to be out looking, financial capabilities, business capabilities as the board is responsible for hiring/firing.
+# (DH) Difficult to identify leadership candidates that were non-feds.
+#:* (ER) Our council will identify where exactly federal employees can participate.
+(PF) Next step will go beyond ExCom to the entire membership. We will put up a wiki page and solicit comments.
+=== ESIP Budget Introduction ===
+==== Questions/Comments ====
+# (BT) Needed clarity on the 5 rolled-up items that are part of the $801K total.
+# (JG) What is the RFID? Is that the opt-in/opt-out thing?
+#:* (ER) That is funding from the Sloan Foundation, which covers development, staff time, meeting app, equipment, i.e. the money is for the full project.
+# (JG) What about rent and office supply?
+#:* (ER) Staff works remotely so we do not cover.
+# (JG) How do we pay the 7K in unallowable expense for drink tickets
+#:* (PF) We receive revenue that become discretionary funds.
+#:* (ER) 7K is drink tickets for 2 meetings and is paid for by registration funds, which are discretionary.
+# (ED) Are the organization cost and the ESIP total supposed to add up to the grand total?
+#:* (ER) There are other unrelated projects that are being wrapped up.
+# (ED) Is there a mission difference between FES and ESIP?
+#:* (PF) They are slightly different now, but would end the same if a merger takes place.
+(PF) The spreadsheet will be cleaned up and it will go out for membership comment. This is an ExCom duty to approve the budget.
-=== Staff Report ===
+=== Staff Reports ===
-# Erin Robinson
+==== Erin Robinson ====
-#:*Call for IGNITE@AGU has been released.
+:* Erin and Rebecca are at GEO this week.
-#:*We have been offered a shared booth space with DataONE and SEEDnet at AGU.
+:* Beginning of a relationship with GEO.
-#:*ESIP, in collaboration with USGS’s Community for Data Integration (CDI) submitted a ‘statement of interest’ to the CDI funding cycle on a training clearinghouse for data management training materials.
+:* Erin was at the regional hub meeting where ESIP was mentioned as a spoke.
-#:*Foundation board meeting tomorrow.
+:* Has been spending a lot of time on the ESIP/Foundation relationship.
-# Annie
+==== Annie Burgess ====
-#:*AIST Technology evaluations have started.
+:* Technology evaluation final reports are due November 17 - everyone has stated they will be on time.
-#:*8 total evaluators for 3 projects.
+:* Announced the “Frontiers in Earth Sciences Big Data” theme at IEEE Big Data in Geosciences workshop.
-#:*The Technology Evaluation Framework is an informational portal, but there is still lots of email communication that needs to happen to keep things moving.
+:* Meet with AIST PIs at JPL.
-#:*Several editorial pieces coming out: Member Highlights and Interviews.
+:* Will present on ESIP Tech Evaluation at AGU.
-=== Budget Report ===
+==== Rebecca Fowler ====
-#Peter
+:* Working on press release for new student fellows.
-#:*Erin has produced a detailed budget for the foundation that has income and expenses.
+:* We’ll do an AGU media advisory for the first time that will highlight ESIP participation in AGU (Ignite, awards, booth).
-#:*This is an introduction to the budget. An email will be sent out after this meeting regarding what input is being sought from ExCom related to the budget.
+:* 12 Ignite speakers and more submissions that ever.
-#:*The idea is to have a process around having a balanced budget on a ~yearly basis. This is important because money in the Federation flows to student fellows, ExCom travel, committees, so the budget document is meant to be more explicit in describing what the expense categories are. Including identifying programmatic elements.
+:* Ignite event at the Oceans meeting went really well.
-#:*We are positioning ourselves for a more detailed budget discussion in November.
+:* Working on communication activities around the ESIP winter meeting.
-#Erin
-#:*When looking at the income, there are known commodities such as Raskin money, NASA, NOAA. Then there is registration fees, which is dependent on meeting attendance. Also potential for sponsorship income.
-Comments on the budget:
-:*(Justin) Is the fact that we are already into FY16 reflected in the budget?
-:*  (Erin) No, we aren’t prorating.
-:*  (Erin) The budget is balanced with registration, which is why the budget is balanced to < $1.
-:*(Danie) What would sponsorship look like for one of the meetings?
-:*  (Erin) Sponsorship and registration can cover the meeting costs, then our sponsorship $ can be used to expand our programmatic capabilities, i.e. student fellows. Time for us to think about how we spend out money and where. Sponsorship opportunities could be sponsoring beer/wine at posters, funding Friday prize, student fellow travel.
 === Meeting Updates ===
-#Summer Meeting
+:* Annie B. is working on the at-a-glance
-#:*Down to three Summer Meeting locations: UNC Chapel Hill, Friday Center, University of New Hampshire, and University of Florida, Gainsville.
+:* We will need to consolidate sessions
-#:*U. of Florida is eager to have us, but they do not have the wifi.
+:* NOAA is having its environmental data management meeting preceding the ESIP Winter Meeting and ESIP members are invited to its closing plenary
-#:*UNC is looking like best bet and can accommodate DataONE. Reasonably priced.
+:* Summer Meeting locations:
-#Future Summer Meeting locations
+:# University of New Hampshire: There is a train from the airport. 77 rooms near the University.
-#:*2017: Midwest is open.
+:# Friday Center, Chapel Hill: We have worked with Chamber of Commerce to shuttle folks from Franklin Street to the Friday center.
-#:*2018: Boulder, Center Green is open.
+==== Questions/Comments ====
-#Winter Meeting
+# (CW) Staying near the center is important to socializing after/before. So, leaning towards NC.
-#:*(Christine) Visioneers liked both modeling and big data. Lots of discussion around clarification of theme ideas. Another option is a shorter theme with an accompanying paragraph.
+# (ER) All other things are equal, i.e. wireless, central breakout.
-#:*The idea was also floated of a yearly theme that covers both meetings.
+# (JG) Are there any budgetary constraints.
-#:*(Denise) Visioneers really liked idea of a yearly theme related to Big Data and Earth Science. Also, there could be sub-themes for each meeting.
+:* (ER) They are both federal per diem room rates.
-#:*(LuAnn) Really likes the idea of a year-long theme.
-#:*(Ted) Likes the year-long theme with the potential of having a modeling and observation sub-theme.
-Comments on Meeting Location:
-:*Justin: Point of information, a strength of Monterey was the number of travel options. Was there a financial hit to ESIP that the fact the closest airport was small.
-:*Erin: Monterey was an expensive meeting because of transport.
 ===Committee Reports===
-# FiCom (Bill): Need to coordinate with Erin regarding getting announcing for requesting for budget submission out.
+# FiCom (Bill): We have a draft announcement for request for budget. We need to clarify with Erin policy for labor. Within the committee  itself we need to work on budget for travel for invited speakers.
-# Partnership (Erin): No new member applications.
+# Partnership (Tyler): Received a new member application for AGU. Will quickly review that this week and get out soon for 30-day review period. Also working on new text for ESIP member join page and membership experience gap analysis.
-# C&B (Ken): Had a good C&B meeting and came up with 3 recommendations, which is in this link (ADD).
+#Stewardship (Justin): David Moroni from JPL gave a presentation on the data infrastructure at PO.DAAC on last telecon. Nancy Hobelheinrich and Jay Carlson have submitted a statement of interest in response to the USGS Community for Data Integration RFP. Discussion of holding a recap on the RDA plenary. Sara Ramdeen attended a talk on the French Minister on Technology talking about the differences between French and US law related to data. Mendeley is allowing identifiers. More details on DS wiki.
-#Stewardship (Justin): ESIP is going to formally respond to GEO data management principles. Rama lead a very good discussion about citizen science during last DS meeting.
+# Ethan (IT&I): No November IT&I Rant and Rave.
-# Education (LuAnn): Using drones as a theme for our next set of workshops. May tap ESIP community members to help with that. Margaret M. is getting people together around the launch of the next GOES-R .
+# Nominations (Denise): We have a comprehensive ballot in place subject to any changes that may come. Thanks to all for stepping up. Denise will write up a how-to for whomever does this next.
-# Ethan (IT&I): Good Rand and Rave at the last call with Raj, who will be submitting a session to the winter meeting.
+# Products and Services (Christine): We have another testbed call out with Deadline December 1. TCB will review and notify. P&S has gotten ideas together for Winter Meeting. Funding Friday folks have been submitting sessions to the Winter Meeting.
-# Nominations (Denise): Awards are due by the end of October.
+# Type I (Danie): Getting data repository people together using a common poster template together. Showing connectedness of repos within ESIP.
-# Products and Services (Christine): Approved minor change in Toolmatch budget. Annie reviewed OSF Testbed Evaluation Framework. We will be releasing a new RFP for testbed.
+# Type 2 (Steven): Nothing to report.
-# Type I (Danie): Talk to Type 1s about Winter Meeting representation, how to leverage their participation. Maybe expand poster to poster-playground of showing repositories. Showing connectedness of repos within ESIP.
+# Type 3 (Ted): Nothing to report.
 ===Other Business===
-:*TOP guidelines are a set of guidelines about transparency in science and publishing. The Foundation for Earth Science has signed on and are putting it out to ExCom about adding ESIP.
+* Ken walked through: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TEhDx3yNH9paeFB_gwV5L3xdUGuzXb_my9rNinJQD1g/edit
-:*Christine suggests a session about TOP at the Winter Meeting. Maybe put TOP guidelines onto the Monday Update.
+:* All positive feedback on the document.
+:*The topic that incited the most conversation was relative to improving the continuity of the officers.
+:* Trying to make some decisions on where this type of information needs to go, i.e. not going into C&B.
+:* Recommendation would be that if we decide to go with a 3-year term approach, we need to get some high-level information on what the roles of the president/past-president roles would be.
+Peter F. suggested going back into the document and synthesizing comments. Federation bylaws would be translated into the Foundation bylaws. We might have to get this discussion completed quickly because of the potential merge.