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

[Dan Bahauddin]

Hi Eda,

I don't think that what you suggest is a compromise.  Rather, I think that
is exactly what is being proposed.  The question is whether we want to
continue this process and to work more on creating a system we think could
work, or do we not want to pursue a decentralized network IM structure.

--

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 4:05 PM, Inigo San Gil <isangil at lternet.edu> wrote:

>
> Precisely the reason that I need more time and discussion.
>
> Incidentally, Ghastil - The RFP process may not be a bad thing. Would it
> result in a "Different" Data Center? Yes, more than likely.  Does
> "Different" mean "Bad" ?  To me it does not - in fact, the more I see the
> same old stuff, im stuck in ground hog day, the more an open RFP becomes
> attractive. Whoever comes with ideas will not come with as much baggage as
> we do (except certain chap that allegedly expressed interest on the RFP
>
>  I would rather see new ideas expressed from within the IMC and LTER.  As
> I stated several times, I would be much bolder than continuity, and less
> apprehensive of change. When I thing about the Data Center, I use two
> steering principles:
>
> 1) An applied center that serves the advancement of science at LTER
>
> 2) An efficient group integrated with the IMC and other enthusiastic
> members of the LTER community and beyond. That has explicit commitments
> with the IMC and viceversa.
>
> By "viceversa", I mean I would spell out what expectations come from the
> LTER sites towards the Data Center tasks.  During the Monday morning
> session of the ESIP meeting ( while internet could maintain an external
> connection from the Asilomar resort ), there were some good ideas towards
> that, but I find that without explicit commitments all that lacks teeth. I
> would spell out how this would work. Putting money on the table is not
> enough to get engagement: we know cause the LNO nicely tried that to the
> tune of beaucoup of $, with lackluster outcomes (I thought it was a great
> idea too)
>
> I would like to see that aspect hardened - the committed distributed model
> - not the wishful thinking, let's leave it to Kumbaya. It does not matter
> how we feel about the feasibility of changing the way the IMC operates:
> Saying no on the basis that we don't think it can be done is the actual
> obstacle to progress.
>
> But the other weakness that will jeopardize this is the Science service
> aspect.  Whatever happens to open the ears of the Data Center to the needs
> of the LTER network ?  I'd like to see a "We the People" model for the LTER
> data center.  Read this blog post (
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/28/how-we-are-changing-way-we-respond-petitions)
> and perhaps see it in action at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/.
> Please somebody tell me we cannot do it.
>
> Rubber-stamping a proposal before we even read a flushed out product, you
> are telling me that what we are voting is on : Are we (the IMC with the
> guidance of Mark) able to put together a competent proposal that has the
> buy-in of most people, and can excite the LTER community ?
>
> In the absence of solid statistical data to answer that, Why don't we have
> a survey where we gather the early feedback of LTERlings, see how they
> react to what they see in those diagrams, etc ?
>
> Do you have access to honest feedback from your PIs ?
>
> I do not think is a good idea to force LTER (that is, all LTER folks) buy
> into the 'next data center' without the opportunity to contribute, to
> provide some feedback and even involvement.  See, that outcome may result
> on aggravated resentment, and finger pointing, and well, that would be
> exactly the opposite of trust and collaborative work we are trying to
> garner here.
>
> In practice, Saying "Yes" is to express our desire to close the door to a
> competitive RFP, and charge ourselves with the definition of the next Data
> Center.  I do not think the ability to do it should be into question, the
> better question would be, "Is this the model we want to shoot for the next
> LTER Data Center"?  Unfortunately, that Nimo is too green to be subjected
> to a Yes/No.  Hence the sought delay. I mean I am hoping that the reason
> Nimo looks like it reads is because is too green, otherwise instead of
> "Finding Nemo", the better guiding movie would be "Groundhog day", Im sure
> we can find an ad-hoc title to the GHD abbreviation.
>
> Thanks for the discussion,
> Inigo
>
>
>
>
> On 7/30/15 12:41 PM, Philip Tarrant wrote:
>
>  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
> <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*
> [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 list
>
> im-rep at lternet.edu
>
>
>
>
>  --
>
>
>
> Inigo San Gil
>
> +1 505 277 2625
>
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=foIppL4AAAAJ&hl=en
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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/20150730/27b85673/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/20150730/27b85673/attachment-0001.jpe>