[LTER-im-rep] Vote to move forward with IM datamanagement exercise

[Ken Ramsey]

Hi Phillip,

I recall that Saran was not concerned with the timing of the vote at
the last VTC. She did seem to want the PIs okay, too. I think voting now
is premature and your reluctance to listen to 3 IMs to delay it is part
of the communications issues we have been struggling with the last few
years. That includes the lack of participation in IM leadership roles.

What is the harm of including feedback from site PIs before we vote
(which could be prior to the meeting)? My PIs are not interested in the
details, just the governance and priority setting. Most of these
concerns come from there insistence that the data center be science
driven (with IM input and guidance).

Contrary to what you say that this plan has been vetted by the IMs, it
has only been so by the few that attended the in person meeting a couple
of weeks ago. The planning mail list has been largely silent.

Ken

-------------------------------
Ken Ramsey
Data Manager
Jornada LTER Project
New Mexico State University
2995 Knox Street, suite 200
Box 30003, MSC 3JER
Las Cruces, NM 88003
(575)646-7918 (office)
(575)646-5889 (fax)
kramsey at jornada-vmail.nmsu.edu
-------------------------------


>>> Philip Tarrant <philip.tarrant at asu.edu> 2015-07-30 12:41 PM >>>
Dear colleagues,

Let me do my best to address the comments resulting from my earlier
e-mail.

I think the timing of the vote is appropriate given where we are in
this process. If you follow the link you will see that the text of the
vote is as follows:

‘As the Information Manager representing my LTER site I recommend
that we should proceed with developing a proposal to the National
Science Foundation to manage LTER information management needs using the
"NIMO” model’

We committed to Saran Twombly fairly early on that we would indicate
over the summer if we were willing and able to propose a solution driven
by the IM community. This vote meets that commitment. As a community we
have already put in significant effort and I don’t think we should
expend any more energy until we know people are in favor of the idea. We
need the vote in advance of our annual meeting because the outcome of
the vote will significantly affect how we spend our time next month. We
have a great opportunity with us all being together to continue
developing these ideas with full IMC input. I think that opportunity
will be wasted if we don’t prepare accordingly.

The proposal development will follow if people vote for this work to
continue. While I think the core of any proposal has to include
continuity for existing services, it does not exclude us from also
proposing new ideas. We just aren’t there yet.

A NO vote will result in me advising Saran that the IMC is not
interested in managing the LTER network data management services. By us
declining this opportunity I assume it will lead to an open RFP inviting
interested organizations to submit proposals.

Hopefully, this answers your immediate concerns. If you feel unable to
commit one way or the other there is the option to abstain.

On a general note, if anyone still has questions feel free to give me a
call to discuss. I am on 480-727-7860.

Regards,
--
Philip Tarrant
Director, Informatics and Technology | Senior Sustainability Scientist
Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability | Arizona State
University
  Sustainable data - use, preserve, re-use

From: im-rep [mailto:im-rep-bounces at lists.lternet.edu] On Behalf Of
Inigo San Gil
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:03 AM
To: im-rep at lists.lternet.edu 
Subject: Re: [LTER-im-rep] Vote to move forward with IM data management
exercise


Hi,

I do not think I have enough time to revise the last additions to the
work to vote confidently.

As I remember the work, the way is presented has a main focus on
continuity.  I would like to see a more exciting proposal that includes
the opinions of the community we work for.  This is just a handful of us
chiming some, and well, judging by what I hear, not so fresh ideas.

Therefore, I think asking for a vote is a bit premature.  We could get
a better proposal out there, at least, we can get something out I can
defend vehemently, as it is (or as I remember it), not so much.

Can you push the vote down to the ASM or at least towards the 3rd week
of August ?

Some more notes - please pay attention:

Also, I missed the 'last week VTC' - the bad practice of not announcing
the date and time and links is really hurting my schedule.  I have many
more things in my plate, like many of us. It is quite simple, and I told
the group several times to include a date and a time and a link at least
(it is simple metadata, EML not needed).

There is no mention that a majority "Yes" vote would also mean that you
will tell Saran that we (IMs) are behind this proposed model, and pave
forward to what would be the LNO Data Center for the next few years.  I
think this should be noted in the list below.

There is no mention what a "No" vote would imply.  Encourage Saran to
let a competitive process to ensue? Please elaborate.

By reading the reactions of my PIs to the PPTx and PDF that was
circulated at EB, I can tell you my PIs feel this proposal would benefit
from serious changes in the general direction as well.  In essence
(there are more details to it), these PIs would love to see this a
science-oriented service.

Thanks,
Inigo

I On 7/30/15 9:23 AM, Philip Tarrant wrote:
Dear colleagues,

The link below is now active for the vote on developing a proposal for
discussion with NSF.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MWDH555 

Please consider the following when voting:

1)      This vote is in support (or not) of the general NIMO model
presented during the VTCs last week.

2)      The size and composition of the governance committee is still
subject to change and we will continue to collect feedback from IMs and
the EB on specifically what this should look like.

3)      The election model is not set in stone, and again we should
continue to develop that to ensure we have sensible levels of IM input
and representation.

4)      If we get a “Yes” vote, we will devote a large part of our
annual meeting on August 30 to developing this model further. So, you
still have an important opportunity to contribute to the piece that you
find most interesting. Further opportunities will follow, I am sure! In
particular, we should focus on the processes for collecting input from
both our community and the scientists we serve, as well as planning and
prioritization mechanisms.

The link will be active until midnight next Wednesday, August 5 (in
reality 8am PDT Thursday, but midnight sounds more dramatic :)), to give
everyone time to vote. However, please do make sure you vote as we want
a full IMC response.

Thank you for your support and cooperation.

Philip Tarrant
Director, Informatics and Technology | Senior Sustainability Scientist
[http://sustainability.asu.edu/docs/gios/signature/images/logo.jpg]
P.O. Box 875402 | Tempe, Arizona | 85287-5402
PH: 480-727-7860   |   Main: 480-965-2975 |
sustainability.asu.edu<http://sustainability.asu.edu/>





_______________________________________________

Long Term Ecological Research Network

im-rep mailing list

im-rep at lternet.edu<mailto:im-rep at lternet.edu>




--



Inigo San Gil

+1 505 277 2625

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=foIppL4AAAAJ&hl=en