Difference between revisions of "ESC Implementation Strategies"
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
* NASA Earth Exchange | * NASA Earth Exchange | ||
* myexperiment.org | * myexperiment.org | ||
| − | ===Hackathon=== | + | ===ESIP Hackathon=== |
| + | ===Unorthodox Recruiting=== | ||
| + | * Google Summer of Code | ||
| + | * Challenges | ||
Revision as of 16:18, July 12, 2011
Potential Earth Science Collaboratory Implementation Strategies and Tactics
Note: all of these straties
Direct Funding
Recommend ESC as a program to agencies
Propose to NSF program
Piggyback off data.gov
Indirect Funding
Branding
Form a joint ESC effort without dedicated funding, and target ESC as the eventual home of components developed to other proposal calls. Hopefully, eventual deployment to ESC would give such proposals an advantage.
- Pros: Worked for CEOP
- Cons: May need to be more substantive
NASA ESDSWG
Make ESC a goal of the NASA Earth Science Working Groups.
- Pros: Technology Infusion, Reuse and Standards and Processes Group currently all work on core needs of the ESC, but are not aiming toward an ESC realization.
- Cons: Not clear that NASA wants to use ESDSWG for this; also leaves out key partners in other agencies, academia, commercial world...
FlashMob
Everybody go to {some collaborative site} and try collaborating on workflows, tools, data, etc. Candidates would include:
- NASA Earth Exchange
- myexperiment.org
ESIP Hackathon
Unorthodox Recruiting
- Google Summer of Code
- Challenges
