Difference between revisions of "Draft Excom Minutes"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Line 24: Line 24:
 
#:* 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 Burgess about ideas for acknowledgement or if you have questions about the process of selecting fellows.
 
#:* 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 Burgess about ideas for acknowledgement or if you have questions about the process of selecting fellows.
 
# ESIP/FES Relationship
 
# ESIP/FES Relationship
#:* Peter Fox received a message from the president of the FES board and after discussions with the FES attorney and ESIP staff, 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 Fox’s action items after these conversations are:
+
#:* FES, in consultation with their lawyer, concluded the conditions leading to the split of the Federation and Foundation was a mistake. Because no one is paid for ESIP leadership, there is no conflict of interest between FES and ESIP. This realization changes the options for the relationship between FES and ESIP. Peter Fox will be reviewing this opinion with ESIP legal council and will report back to ExCom on the results. The group discussed this new information and potential consequences and alternative leadership structures. A question was raised about the cost of legal review and where those funds come from. Peter will work to keep ExCom and when appropriate the broader ESIP community apprised with a wiki page.  
#:** Review ESIP/FES merger 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 were asked about the original basis for the conflict of interest. It was explained that 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.
 
#:* Attorney costs for determining issues related to a conflict of interest are a few thousand dollars. However, the cost of a dual leadership is incredibly expensive.
 
#:* FES and ESIP could potentially merge back together. 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.
 
#:* Next step will go beyond ExCom to the entire membership and put up a wiki page and solicit comments.
 
 
# ESIP Budget Introduction
 
# ESIP Budget Introduction
 
#:* Budget components were reviewed relative to individual line items, ESIP/FES budget separations and allowable expenses under discretionary funds. If FES and ESIP merged, ambiguity around FES/ESIP budget separations wouldn't exist.  
 
#:* Budget components were reviewed relative to individual line items, ESIP/FES budget separations and allowable expenses under discretionary funds. If FES and ESIP merged, ambiguity around FES/ESIP budget separations wouldn't exist.  
 
#:* Peter Fox gave an action item to clean up the spreadsheet so it can go out for membership comment. This is an ExCom duty to approve the budget.
 
#:* Peter Fox gave an action item to clean up the spreadsheet so it can go out for membership comment. This is an ExCom duty to approve the budget.
 
# Staff Reports
 
# Staff Reports
#:Erin Robinson  
+
#:Erin Robinson -
 
#:* Erin and Rebecca are at GEO this week.  
 
#:* Erin and Rebecca are at GEO this week.  
 
#:* Beginning of a relationship with GEO.
 
#:* Beginning of a relationship with GEO.

Revision as of 14:57, November 18, 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

Executive Committee Business

  1. Approval of October Minutes
    • Christine White motioned to approve Minutes and Justin Goldstein seconded. The minutes were approved by acclamation.
  2. President's Report
    • Peter Fox, Erin Robinson and Rebecca Fowler are in attendance at GEO.
    • There is a 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 Burgess about ideas for acknowledgement or if you have questions about the process of selecting fellows.
  3. ESIP/FES Relationship
    • FES, in consultation with their lawyer, concluded the conditions leading to the split of the Federation and Foundation was a mistake. Because no one is paid for ESIP leadership, there is no conflict of interest between FES and ESIP. This realization changes the options for the relationship between FES and ESIP. Peter Fox will be reviewing this opinion with ESIP legal council and will report back to ExCom on the results. The group discussed this new information and potential consequences and alternative leadership structures. A question was raised about the cost of legal review and where those funds come from. Peter will work to keep ExCom and when appropriate the broader ESIP community apprised with a wiki page.
  4. ESIP Budget Introduction
    • Budget components were reviewed relative to individual line items, ESIP/FES budget separations and allowable expenses under discretionary funds. If FES and ESIP merged, ambiguity around FES/ESIP budget separations wouldn't exist.
    • Peter Fox gave an action item to clean up the spreadsheet so it can go out for membership comment. This is an ExCom duty to approve the budget.
  5. 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.
  6. Meeting Updates
    • Annie Burgess 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.
      • There are no budgetary differences between the two locations.
    • Group likes the idea of optimizing socializing/networking in and around meeting.
  7. Committee Reports
    • FiCom: 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: 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.
    • Data Stewardship: 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.
    • IT&I: No November IT&I Rant and Rave.
    • Nominations: 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: 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.
  8. Type Reports
    • Type I: Getting data repository people together using a common poster template together. Showing connectedness of repos within ESIP.
    • Type 2: Nothing to report.
    • Type 3: Nothing to report.
  9. Other Business
    • Ken Keiser walked through: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TEhDx3yNH9paeFB_gwV5L3xdUGuzXb_my9rNinJQD1g/edit
      • Lots of positive feedback on this document, with the most conversation revolving around 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 it was decided to go with a 3-year term approach, there needs to be some high-level information on what the roles of the president/past-president roles would be.
    • Peter Fox 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.