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

[Gastil Gastil-Buhl]

Hi fellow IMs,

Of course caution is wise and no IM is going to stick their head in the
sand. We want to go into this with our eyes open. There remains much work
to be done to define the proposal and once awarded to finalize the
cooperative agreement. But here is how I see this vote at this stage:

This is a fork in the river. We have not seen the end of either way. If we
take this into our own hands, at least we will be the ones driving and
navigating, not just adrift in the current or tugged. In IM there will
always be unforeseen challenges and more worthy projects than resources.

To me, a YES vote is one of confidence that within our IM community there
does exist the skill and wisdom to respond to the inevitable rough water
ahead. A vote of NO invites competitive proposals by institutions which
likely do have some connection to LTER and IM, but cannot be as inherently
egalitarian, unifying and cooperative as the IMC as a whole. And those
proposals we of course know even less about. So a NO to NIMO means a YES to
an even more unknown proposal.

- Gastil

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Inigo San Gil <isangil at lternet.edu> wrote:

>
> 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*
> [image: 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Long Term Ecological Research Network
> im-rep mailing listim-rep at lternet.edu
>
>
>
> --
>
> Inigo San Gil+1 505 277 2625http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=foIppL4AAAAJ&hl=en
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Long Term Ecological Research Network
> im-rep mailing list
> im-rep at lternet.edu
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lternet.edu/pipermail/im-rep/attachments/20150730/0634210d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16622 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.lternet.edu/pipermail/im-rep/attachments/20150730/0634210d/attachment-0001.jpe>