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

[Dan Bahauddin]

Hi Ken,

I would say I feel is our duty as IM's to work with our own site leadership
to decide a) how we as IM's represent our sites within this community.
Presumably, we are discussing these issues at our sites, and are voting
accordingly.

Further, I believe we were asked by Saran if we, the IMC, felt we could
take on these tasks.  Answering her question does not mean we are saying we
"must control all development".

--

Dan Bahauddin*Information Manager

Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve
2660 Fawn Lake Dr. NE
East Bethel, MN 55005

Office:  612-301-2603
Fax:  612-301-2626*


On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Ken Ramsey <kramsey at jornada-vmail.nmsu.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Gastil,
>
> You make good points. However, I do not understand the irrational fear
> that the data center be science driven and why we do not get our site
> lead PIs input into the governance model (not the entire plan). After
> all, this is a ecological science network. The data center needs to
> develop tools for accessing and using data that our scientists want and
> need. We should not leave the impression that we must control all
> development.
>
> Why can't we have a vote that includes our lead PIs?
>
> 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
> -------------------------------
>
>
> >>> Gastil Gastil-Buhl <gastil.gastil-buhl at ucsb.edu> 2015-07-30 01:03
> PM >>>
> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150730/6305fcfc/attachment.html>