Difference between revisions of "ESIP Partnership May Telecon (3:30PM EDT)"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
''Back to'' '''[[Partnership]]''' -- The following applications have been posted for review by the Partnership Committee  <br>
 
''Back to'' '''[[Partnership]]''' -- The following applications have been posted for review by the Partnership Committee  <br>
  
Telecon: Monday 8 May 20 3:30 - 4:30PM EDT <br />
+
Telecon: Monday 8 May 2017 3:30 - 4:30PM EDT <br />
 
Call In Details:<br />
 
Call In Details:<br />
 
Please join from your computer, tablet or smartphone. <br />
 
Please join from your computer, tablet or smartphone. <br />
Line 19: Line 19:
  
 
* [[Partnership_Applications| Membership application]] review status
 
* [[Partnership_Applications| Membership application]] review status
**Thanks to all who reviewed applications!  Seven new member apps are out for 30 day assembly review.<br />
+
**Thanks to all who reviewed applications!  Seven new member apps are out for 30 day assembly review.
 +
***How is Assembly feedback handled? (question for Bruce)<br />
  
  
 
*Request from Bruce to invite three 'historical DAACs' to become ESIP members
 
*Request from Bruce to invite three 'historical DAACs' to become ESIP members
# OB.DAAC (Ocean Biology)
+
#OB.DAAC (Ocean Biology)
 
#CDDIS (Crustal Dynamics)
 
#CDDIS (Crustal Dynamics)
 
#LAADS (MODIS Level 1 and Atmosphere Archiving and Distribution System)<br />
 
#LAADS (MODIS Level 1 and Atmosphere Archiving and Distribution System)<br />
Line 34: Line 35:
  
 
*Other related topics:
 
*Other related topics:
**Strategic Plan for 2017?
+
**Strategic Plan for 2017? Not necessary for Partnership.
 
**How will Committee SOP's play into overall P&P governance document? (question for Bruce)
 
**How will Committee SOP's play into overall P&P governance document? (question for Bruce)
  
  
 
==Meeting Minutes / Notes==
 
==Meeting Minutes / Notes==
Present: <br />
+
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x0GgJz_yFgiYVQAFZMUQ0dzl2EcTcvgCtzt6CDxF5ho/edit# See Google Doc for Minutes/Notes]
 
 
 
 
- ''Request from Bruce to invite three 'historical DAACs' to become ESIP members''<br />
 
 
 
POC’s and contact information for the three DAACs above:<br />
 
'''CDDIS'''<br />
 
:Carey Noll, DAAC Manager, 301-614-6542, carey.e.noll@nasa.gov<br /
 
:Dr. Patrick Michael, DAAC Deputy Manager, 301-614-5370, patrick.michael@nasa.gov<br />
 
'''LAADS'''<br />
 
:Edward Masuoka, DAAC Manager, 301-614-5515, edward.j.masuoka@nasa.gov <br />
 
:Bhaskar Ramachandran, DAAC Scientist, 301-614-5460, bhaskar.ramachandran@nasa.gov<br />
 
'''OB.DAAC'''<br />
 
:Dr. Gene Feldman, DAAC Manager, 301-286-9428, gene.c.feldman@nasa.gov<br />
 
:Sean Bailey, DAAC Deputy Manager, 301-286-3931, sean.w.bailey@nasa.gov<br />
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- ''Update on Partnership questions regarding a possible survey to cover:''<br />
 
 
 
  
  
 
==Previous Call Notes==
 
==Previous Call Notes==
'''Application questions from last call- survey exploration'''<br />
+
'''Membership Application questions from last call- survey exploration'''<br />
  
 
:Do we encourage one application for an entire organization (i.e., EPA) or do we encourage individual labs/divisions/departments to become members?  There may be pros and cons to smaller divisional representation with respect to travel authorization to ESIP meetings, and competitive perspectives on voting representation. <br />
 
:Do we encourage one application for an entire organization (i.e., EPA) or do we encourage individual labs/divisions/departments to become members?  There may be pros and cons to smaller divisional representation with respect to travel authorization to ESIP meetings, and competitive perspectives on voting representation. <br />

Latest revision as of 20:28, May 10, 2017

Back to Partnership -- The following applications have been posted for review by the Partnership Committee

Telecon: Monday 8 May 2017 3:30 - 4:30PM EDT
Call In Details:
Please join from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/168308485
You can also dial in using your phone.
United States +1 (646) 749-3131
Access Code: 168-308-485

Agenda

Old business:

  • Review of previous call's Action Items:
  1. All: Review apps, jot down any concerns, identify any incomplete applications, etc.
  2. Danie: Investigate partnership survey with Erin, Bruce, etc.
  3. Danie will check with Viv on new meeting time and communicate to Annie.

New Business:

  • Membership application review status
    • Thanks to all who reviewed applications! Seven new member apps are out for 30 day assembly review.
      • How is Assembly feedback handled? (question for Bruce)


  • Request from Bruce to invite three 'historical DAACs' to become ESIP members
  1. OB.DAAC (Ocean Biology)
  2. CDDIS (Crustal Dynamics)
  3. LAADS (MODIS Level 1 and Atmosphere Archiving and Distribution System)


  • Update on Partnership questions regarding a possible survey to cover:
    • number of member voting reps/size of member organization, is there interest in
    • when should smaller units of large organizations be encouraged to apply as a members / Does being a member of a large organization and only having one voting rep cause problems among multiple organizational subunits?


  • Other related topics:
    • Strategic Plan for 2017? Not necessary for Partnership.
    • How will Committee SOP's play into overall P&P governance document? (question for Bruce)


Meeting Minutes / Notes

See Google Doc for Minutes/Notes


Previous Call Notes

Membership Application questions from last call- survey exploration

Do we encourage one application for an entire organization (i.e., EPA) or do we encourage individual labs/divisions/departments to become members? There may be pros and cons to smaller divisional representation with respect to travel authorization to ESIP meetings, and competitive perspectives on voting representation.
  • How do we decide if a single voting rep is sufficiently representing the entire organization or a smaller subset? Entire organizational membership is a more welcoming situation for inclusiveness, however the broader organization membership may result in dilution of the benefits of ESIP participation to the individual department/division/lab.
  • Can we get clarification (from ESIP) on how these reps relate to the broader organization? Is there interest in seeing a voting rep:organizational size ratio determined? Or, Possibly edit current application text to include language to indicate that membership of a large organization implies inclusiveness to all organizational members (across departments/divisions/labs)?

Perhaps develop a survey for voting reps (targeting larger organizations) - any issues as a single voting rep of a large organization- such a survey could establish demographics and identify any issues related to voting representation. Danie will investigate with Erin, Bruce, etc.