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

Thu Jul 30 14:03:20 MDT 2015

Hi Ken,

This IMC vote is not an alternative to seeking support from our PIs and other site colleagues. I believe we will absolutely need approval from them as we go forward. However, this is an internal vote for us to proceed to the next stage. I see seeking their approval as part of that next phase. 

I should note, though, that I do not see the operation of the governance committee and the process by which we take science input to be the same thing. I think one of the challenges we have is to define a robust process by which we can collect requirements from our colleagues to ensure that our data management activities are science driven. The current lack of such a process is one the problems we should set out to address as we develop these ideas further.   

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  

-----Original Message-----
From: im-rep [mailto:im-rep-bounces at lists.lternet.edu] On Behalf Of Ken Ramsey
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 12:14 PM
To: im-rep at lists.lternet.edu; Gastil Gastil-Buhl
Subject: Re: [LTER-im-rep] Vote to move forward with IM data managementexercise

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