[LTER-im-rep] LTER NIMO proposal, draft 1

[Inigo San Gil]

IMs, and select data center supporters,

I was telling Mark the day before yesterday, the first thing when I read 
this lousy budget (and tell you about it) is apply for a new job. and 
then, interview. Not kidding, ask Tina about receiving calls for references.

For the benefit of all, and particularly, to make IMs aware (since we 
seem to insist in keeping IMs in the dark).

The budget circulated over a week ago, reflects a level of work that 
mimics what the LNO data-center operations does, 1 FTE, 1/2 sysadmin. 
and 10k for infrastructure, computers, equipment (?).

What we need, in no specific order is a real system administrator, two 
or three programmers, a content strategist, an IT architect, a dev-ops 
specialist, two data curators, a data entry, two content editors, a data 
analyst, a front end designer, a database administrator, a program 
manager, an evangelist (pr person), and two full stack developers.  Such 
team, well guided, using a real agile framework may be able to take LTER 
where it needs to be.

Yes, there is simply no budget for this. But it is what we need to stay 
relevant and making a difference. The mentality of 'let a graduate 
student do this', infuriates me.  It is unfair to the student who is 
working on a thesis project, and it shows the deficient level of 
attention to the IT needs of a network the size and scope of LTER.

I look around and I see many persons who would fulfill those roles from 
our own network sites. Most of the folks I think about, are already in 
the LTER payroll, as IMs.  We just failed to adapt to being a 
distributed and coordinated network, but it is not too late.  Not acting 
on it, and being silent about these realities, or intimidating, or 
bullying or condescending attitudes will not help the network either.

The proposed budget which is not yet shared with the IMS (you had an 
entire week to do so), allocates a disproportionate amount of the budget 
for management (compensation of leadership).  That is not what I 
recommend and what we have been discussing through the summer and at the 
ASM. Given the paltry allocation, I would put one person overseeing (not 
three + a paid committee). A helpful group would revise and prioritize 
tasks for the decision maker to give the go-ahead. The task and projects 
would come already pre-selected by the larger community.  Simple and 
effective, the rest of the leadership time would be committed to 
assisting NSF, gov. agency reps, NGOs and philanthropist about why LTER 
matters, and specifically, the role of the information management, which 
is what facilitates the concept of "network" in LTER.

As a group, we did not succeed articulating any of that before EB (and 
NSF, and let alone other instances of science and society ). It is 
undeniable that the current folks also did not succeed in making the 
case (there is enough money in NSF to fund a solid team properly). I 
know you tried, but for whatever reason, it did not happen.

We need an adequately funded team (not just one person, or three for 
that matter) to entrust the network future.  You and me had this 
responsibility, specially those of you in positions of leadership. 
Consuming your energies speaking about tech. details (PASTA, DEIMS or 
the likes), would not make the case (and consequently, not a budget). 
LTER and NSF needs to understand that most of information and data 
services are not sustainable with the current proposition. Not just the 
money, but the draft plans laid out.  The insistence on hiding, being 
silent or not addressing these concerns any of this would not solve it 
either.

For example, even though the DEIMS project is mentioned, there is not a 
single mechanism or a dollar amount pegged to the DEIMS project.  DEIMS 
is the kind of project that has penetrated and galvanized the network as 
never before, using a tiny fraction of the network funds .  Look beyond 
LTER, you will find adoption within ILTER: Asia and Europe are using 
these tools, which actually help the sites and networks out there.  OBFS 
sites, and other gov. sites are using it.  Yet, somehow, the opportunity 
to keep the flag at US-LTER is not carefully stated in your plans. You 
mention the project in the narrative, but you do not allocate a dollar 
towards it.

I think the budget forces one project against the other, as if there was 
one thing better or more needed that the rest. That is not the case. The 
current PASTA project and plans alone will not do squat, it needs help 
from all fronts, not just technical.  Likewise for other great 
initiatives, DEIMS, the GCE toolbox, the unit dictionary, and the basic 
services proposed as early as 2004. approved but never saw the light of 
day.

I know in the mind of some PIs, if NIMO goes, we do not loose anything.  
All that tells me is that the current leadership failed to articulate a 
vision of future of the network in Information Management before 
everybody.  Perhaps we consumed our time talking about EML cylinders, 
and other audience-inappropriate silly details, and overall, time spent 
talking to the wrong people. The reasons why we failed are important, 
they contain valuable learning lessons.

Cheers, Inigo
PS: Saw the force awakens last night.  For the fans out here, this one 
is awesome.

> These kinds of specific recommendations and insights are exactly the 
> kind of feedback we were hoping to get.  There is no doubt we need to 
> better align the goals and strategies with the budget, as you have 
> pointed out.  Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful remarks.  We 
> will indeed take them seriously.
>
> Paul and Corinna
>
> *From:*Mark Servilla [mailto:mark.servilla at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2015 3:56 PM
> *To:* Paul Hanson
> *Cc:* groffmanp at ecostudies.org; debpeter at nmsu.edu; 
> dan.reed at lifesci.ucsb.edu; sherri.l.johnson at oregonstate.edu; 
> vanderbi at sevilleta.unm.edu; Inigo San Gil; Margaret O'Brien; Philip 
> Tarrant; Boose, Emery; John Porter; Corinna Gries
> *Subject:* Re: LTER NIMO proposal, draft 1
>
> Dear Corinna/Paul,
>
> First, thank you for this opportunity to be a part of the LTER NIMO 
> future. I have read through the draft proposal and will provide you 
> with my comments as inline marginal notes in a separate email as a 
> scanned copy of the document.
>
> It is my opinion that the current draft proposal has not matured 
> sufficiently for an earnest review of the proposed goals and how such 
> goals and strategies are aligned to the draft budget. My initial 
> reaction, like others, is that the scope of this proposal is far 
> greater than the $700,000 you have targeted in the budget. I glean 
> from one or two statements that prioritization is centered around the 
> “core” infrastructure, but the “core” infrastructure is not adequately 
> described in a sufficient degree as compared to other sections of the 
> proposal. Note to self: this may be what my contribution would entail.
>
> More to the point, it is not clear how you see that the present 
> Network Information System and PASTA will be maintained into the near 
> future (2-3 years). The proposal is vague on the mechanism to maintain 
> PASTA.  For example, a sub-contract to UNM is not mentioned, although 
> reviewers will certainly want full details on the tasks to be 
> completed under that sub-contract.
>
> In the proposal, you state the following:
>
> 1.“Certain technical services are designated as “core” and will be of 
> highest priority overall because they ensure continued data security 
> and availability, and provide a foundation for all other services.”
>
> 2.“The PASTA software stack and associated web services comprise the 
> central repository, for data and metadata storage, preservation and 
> Digital Object Identifier (DOI) management.”
>
> 3.“The Project Manager will field these requests into categories of 
> (1) needing immediate attention…”, “Examples for (1) are: day-to-day 
> support questions (system malfunctioning, operational questions for 
> centrally supported technology, etc.)”
>
> 4.“Scale up the LTER Network Information System to allow environmental 
> data collected outside of LTER to be curated and published in the 
> system on a ‘for fee’ basis.”
>
> 5.“In regards to the third goal, many LTER site information systems, 
> as well as the NIS, are already accommodating data from non-LTER 
> projects, such as LTREB and MSB. However, this support is usually 
> provided and funded informally and the supported projects frequently 
> have some connection to an LTER site (e.g. research done at the site 
> with additional NSF funding and LTER PIs involved). Formalizing and 
> opening this service more widely will allow NIMO to grow and for 
> curation services to be offered to a wider range of environmental 
> research projects.”
>
> From these references, I infer that the NIS and PASTA contribute 
> substantially to the “core” infrastructure and that its operation and 
> stability are paramount to this transition proposal. However, the 
> operation and stability of the NIS and PASTA cannot be guaranteed on a 
> single 0.5 FTE position - in other words, a problem or maintenance 
> issue would not be addressed in any off-NIMO time of this position. I 
> fully understand that maintenance does not consume 100% effort, but 
> issues do not and will not abide by a schedule. It is my 
> recommendation that you reconsider the role of this position and build 
> into the budget 0.5 FTE for myself and 0.5 FTE for Duane Costa. In 
> addition, from items 4 and 5, it appears that new software will need 
> to be developed or integrated into existing infrastructure to support 
> the addition of external communities. If this software is to be 
> integrated into the NIS and PASTA on top of the maintenance 
> requirement, there is absolutely no way a 0.5 FTE position will 
> fulfill this goal. With both myself and Duane Costa dedicated to 
> supporting the NIS and PASTA, NIMO will benefit by having complete and 
> redundant coverage for the operation and stability of its core 
> infrastructure and a breadth of expertise that would support 
> maintenance (e.g., updates and bug fixes), as well as the development 
> or integration of new software (i.e., to support an external user base 
> or LTER IMC needs) into this infrastructure.
>
> To achieve this adjustment, I recommend reducing the role of the 
> system administrator by half or more, because at present, it is not 
> clear in the current draft what infrastructure needs to be 
> administered. If this system administrator is to provide coverage for 
> the NIS and PASTA, as I stated in an earlier conversation, I perform 
> the majority of system administration for all NIS and PASTA related 
> systems myself, with Duane Costa providing the remainder of 
> administration. Alternatively, you could reduce the role of the IM 
> support person by half, as this role is not clearly defined in the 
> draft proposal either.
>
> Also note that there is no confirmation that UNM will agree to an 
> “off-site” overhead rate for the sub-contract. If Wisconsin has agreed 
> to an off-site rate, a statement to that effect and the rationale for 
> providing an off-site rate would be helpful in discussions here. The 
> current budget line item for me in the UNM subcontract also 
> under-estimates fringe benefits.
>
> Finally, you make the following remark:
>
> “However, despite this high degree of availability, synthesis projects 
> still report problems with data discovery and reuse, and external 
> evaluation of LTER has been critical of the NIS for falling short on 
> data discovery.”
>
> This negative (and in my opinion, incorrect) perspective of existing 
> LTER information management practices and services seems to pervade 
> this entire draft. Although I do not dispute that all technology can 
> be improved, I have never been alerted to problems occurring with data 
> discovery and reuse by any synthesis project nor have I seen an 
> external review that has been critical of data discovery through the 
> present NIS. Within the past year, the search and discovery 
> capabilities of the NIS Data Portal have improved dramatically both in 
> terms of features and performance. Furthermore, my recollection is 
> that the McKnight and Ellison report on PASTA and the NIS was quite 
> favorable. If you believe that your statement is true, you should 
> support it with citations or other documentation. In contrast, I would 
> build on the progress LTER has made in the realm of information 
> management and promote it as a platform on which to extend the NIMO 
> vision.
>
> In closing, I offer my knowledge and expertise about the NIS and PASTA 
> for consideration on key components of this proposal, but please give 
> serious consideration to my comments and recommendations above.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> ---
> Mark Servilla
> mark.servilla at gmail.com <mailto:mark.servilla at gmail.com>
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Paul Hanson <pchanson at wisc.edu 
> <mailto:pchanson at wisc.edu>> wrote:
>
> Dear LTER Colleagues:
>
> [On behalf of Corinna, who is out of the office until Dec 18.]
>
> All: Please return your edits by Friday, December 18^th .
>
> EB members:  Please edit and return the attached Word document.
>
> IM members: Please edit directly the online Google Doc: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZBzRDaLwdvzkqQUGlIz7EMBMrjHHkzySHJmMMmC8wvM/edit
>
> Thank you in advance for your help with the proposal.  While it still 
> needs a lot of work, we hope that it includes enough content for you 
> to evaluate the main objectives and approaches.  Please keep in mind 
> that the scope has changed in the past few months.  This proposed 
> project, which would be only three years in duration, is a transition 
> between the current LNO and what an LTER data center might be under a 
> future competition that likely will occur in 2-3 years.  We are 
> writing the proposal with an anticipated budget of $700K/y. There are 
> essentially no prospects for raising that budget, and it might be the 
> case that the budget gets reduced.  Three years will go very quickly, 
> so we are trying to be realistic about what might be accomplished.  
> Perhaps we’re overly optimistic.
>
> Here are a few things we ask of you while reviewing and writing:
>
> (1)Does the scope of activities map onto a 3 year project of the 
> stated funding level?
>
> (2)Are the goals about right, and if so, do the proposed activities 
> help meet those goals?
>
> (3)Will LTER likely be in a better place 3 years from now because of 
> these efforts?
>
> Please do not wordsmith, but do identify problems and gaps and 
> recommendations for fixing them. Do not hesitate to add material, as 
> some of the current content might be moved to other supporting documents.
>
> With great appreciation,
>
> Corinna and Paul
>
> ____________________________
>
> Paul C. Hanson
>
> Distinguished Professor of Research
>
> University of Wisconsin
>
> Center for Limnology
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lternet.edu/pipermail/im-rep/attachments/20151218/7ad04f59/attachment-0001.html>