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

[Corinna Gries]

Hi all,

Let me try to rephrase the question at hand one more time. In my mind the vote means, yes, we believe we (LTER IMs) can collaboratively create a datacenter that will serve LTER science and play to our diverse strengths and we want to go ahead and work out the details in a proposal – or, no, we would like a different organization to come in with new ideas and direct our efforts to sever LTER science (i.e., open RFP process).

If the decision is ‘yes’ we should go ahead and extract the many constructive ideas from this discussion for planning our IM meeting. (If the answer is ‘no’, we probably can just go on a hike, because we won’t have much to do. ☺ )

So, here is what I am reading in these e-mails and please help develop this agenda by suggesting more subjects to IMexec:

Inigo will lead a working group on change. Questions this working group may ask and try to answer are

·         Do we want to change the way we are doing things

·         If so, where do we want to end up, i.e., what changes do we consider necessary, desirable, and helpful for better serving LTER science.

·         How will we get to where we want to be, what are the steps and how long will it take

·         Develop a fairly precise and detailed description of how this data center will operate in the future

·         ….?

Ken will lead a working group on science input. Questions this working group may ask and try to answer are

·         What kind of input will provide a better understanding of science needs and priorities

·         How will the data center gather this input, i.e., what questions do we need to ask and of whom

·         How will we encourage scientists to be more engaged in IM questions than they have been so far on NISAC

·         How will we balance science needs vs. technical needs under a limited budget

·         What are the criteria for prioritizing science support IM projects

·         Create a list of possible services that our collective skill set allows us to offer to scientists and synthesis working groups

·         …. ?

Sorry to put you two on the spot, these are extremely interesting questions and I can’t wait to tackle them when we finally get beyond the governance discussion hang-up. This is the kind of input we will need for actually writing a successful proposal. There are more subjects that need to be worked out at the IM meeting of course, so keep the ideas coming. But we really should only expend this effort if we are sure we want to do this.

And finally, risking that I have my head bit off again, we have started to write down some ideas in the google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gUr6ykdxnUMutt2Vv5NtMjWsCLMX5CqlsUDQv5dnuyo/edit Please keep in mind that this currently is more of brain dump with many pieces still missing, than a finished product and those working groups above would really help move this along.

Thanks for the spirited discussion
Corinna

From: im-rep [mailto:im-rep-bounces at lists.lternet.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Bahauddin
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 4:29 PM
To: Inigo San Gil
Cc: im-rep at lists.lternet.edu
Subject: Re: [LTER-im-rep] Vote to move forward with IM data management exercise

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<mailto: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<tel: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<mailto: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<tel:480-727-7860>   |   Main: 480-965-2975<tel: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<tel:%2B1%20505%20277%202625>

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




--



Inigo San Gil

+1 505 277 2625<tel:%2B1%20505%20277%202625>

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

_______________________________________________
Long Term Ecological Research Network
im-rep mailing list
im-rep at lternet.edu<mailto:im-rep at lternet.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lternet.edu/pipermail/im-rep/attachments/20150730/d2e62c0c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16622 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.lternet.edu/pipermail/im-rep/attachments/20150730/d2e62c0c/attachment-0001.jpg>