[LTER-mcm-pi] LTER Data Center views

[Inigo San Gil]

Hi all,

I am quite involved in the Information Manager ( IM ) led proposal for a 
LTER Data Center; I started paying complete attention as soon as I heard 
Saran Twombly was considering plans by the LTER IMs on the next LNO Data 
Center (in lieu of a formal RFP).  Since Mike invited me to chime in ( 
thanks! )  I am taking the opportunity to weight in on the IM led 
developments and also express some alternate ideas here.

In summary - The IM plans presented to Mike and the EB here, and the 
ideas behind these plans reflect continuity.   While continuity may 
sound great for LTER, in my opinion it is also a missed opportunity to 
make the LTER Data Center work efficiently for the science and the LTER 
scientist.  I back this by 10 years of experience working closely with 
the LNO - I think the next Data Center can do a better job.

I have been pushing for a total revamp on how the Data Center and IM 
group operates, but I am unsure whether I will succeed with my push - 
not too optimistic.  As the plans are, I am missing some critical 
components.

In essence, I would be bold about how the Data Center should operate, 
and less concerned about maintaining the current status quo.  Some IMs 
on the LTER IM group feel like I do, but others may disagree.

I would enforce coordination where coordination can be attained: Even 
though all LTERs are different, there are some common IT aspects to all 
LTERs. It would no longer be an option to have 26 architectures (to be 
maintained) to do the same core functions, in my view, we would have one 
common core for all LTERs and then each LTER would maintain their custom 
needs.

The effort saved using a common core infrastructure will be used to 
serve LTER science needs -- we would place talent to work with teams 
that do interesting science, perhaps favoring those cross-site and 
synthesis projects, but taking into account any LTER projects.

I also propose a bit different organizational - I would greatly simplify 
the diagrams shown in the materials that Mike enclosed. I would go for a 
more traditional NSF structure; with a lead PI and a team of other 
specialized talented individuals tasked with accomplishing a set of 
goals that are proposed by the LTER community (that is, you) and 
prioritized by the LTER community.  I would also formally change how 
LTER IM teams operate - IMs would contribute to common infrastructure 
development and upkeep in their areas of expertise - this would be required.

Operational tweaks: I am a believer in transparency and openness. We all 
work better when there is mutual trust, and one way to nurture trust is 
to be as transparent and open as possible. Simple changes - I would 
record all meetings, would open those for participation. Also, we would 
have an open community process to proposing Data Center tasks, void of 
tech-jargon.   Also revising the Data center priorities should be 
community weighted (think the We the people White house initiative), and 
with the oversight of the NSF (under cooperative agreement).  However, 
the Data Center group will have the complete independence on how to 
accomplish the goals concerted by the community.  This also contrast 
with the proposed model, which operates more like it does now ( an even 
more IM-heavy NISAC like group ).

Technologically speaking I am proposing re-use of open source products 
backed by a strong community.  I would have a team that re-uses and 
customizes the best synergistic modern products. Contrast this with the 
proposed ideas: revive custom in-house solutions which in my view are 
too expensive on the short and long term and may not have served LTER 
science needs as expected. I would revise the PASTA effort -- see how 
much is being used as it is. I would re-visit the PASTA components of 
the current implementation that do not serve the purpose of solving 
actual LTER science needs, and divest time and efforts into practical 
scientific projects.

This is a summary, I have more detailed plans, but I wanted to emphasize 
my differences with what you see in the PDF and PPT docs. I am tempted 
on presenting these ideas on an alternative proposal, but I am still 
hopeful that all IMs can agree in one common plan. I have been 
successful in stopping some aspects of the proposed IM plans that did 
not make sense to me, like having an independent financial institution 
manage the grant, etc. In any case, these will all unfold by the time 
the ASM comes ( a month? ), Saran would like to resolve ASAP, as 
whatever the next Data Center is, will have to roll out ops by Spring 
next year.

I am all ears about what you think the Data Center should be.  I know 
Diane's group was successful in splitting the communications from data 
center ops, and I am sure Diane's group have some specific results in 
mind. If you want to devote some time in a phone conversation or email, 
all the better -- the Data Center should work for you, and you have a 
voice.

Depending on the outcome of the Data Center, I may want to present a 
plan for my involvement involved with MCM-V in terms that preserve what 
you want to do and the cost that you are looking for (~$50k).  This 
should come around September or October.

cheers,
Inigo



On 7/26/15 10:10 PM, Michael Gooseff wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please see the info below (and attached) in regards to a new approach 
> to a Network Data Center approach that is coming from the Network IM 
> community.  Everyone is seeking a state of Kumbaya, but no one is 
> quite sure the attached plans will achieve it.
>
> (My email address replaced Diane’s on several network lists, but not 
> this one.  My apologies for the late delivery of info.)
>
> _Please let me know what you think about this plan_.  Peter is largely 
> asking for the lead PIs to convey the thoughts and reactions from 
> their sites and I have a teleconf set up with him for Thursday of this 
> coming week to discuss. /If you could get me any thoughts before 
> Thursday, I would appreciate it/.
>
> Inigo - this includes you, of course!
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
> P.S. - Bonus points to the first person who understands the reference 
> to Kumbaya in the message above!
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Michael Gooseff, Associate Professor
> Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research
> Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0450
>
> email: michael.gooseff at colorado.edu <mailto:michael.gooseff at colorado.edu>
> web: http://goosefflab.weebly.com <http://goosefflab.weebly.com/>
> phone: 303.735.5333
>
>
>
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *Diane McKnight <Diane.Mcknight at colorado.edu 
>> <mailto:Diane.Mcknight at colorado.edu>>
>> *Subject: **Fwd: [LTER-site-exec] FW: LTER Data Center update*
>> *Date: *July 25, 2015 at 12:38:41 PM MDT
>> *To: *"mgooseff at engr.colostate.edu 
>> <mailto:mgooseff at engr.colostate.edu>" <mgooseff at engr.colostate.edu 
>> <mailto:mgooseff at engr.colostate.edu>>
>>
>> Mike, FYI. I don't know if you're on the exec list yet or not. Cheers 
>> Diane
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: 	[LTER-site-exec] FW: LTER Data Center update
>> Date: 	Sat, 25 Jul 2015 03:04:35 -0400
>> From: 	Peter Groffman<groffmanp at caryinstitute.org>
>> To: 	site-exec<site-exec at lternet.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear LTER Site PI’s,
>>
>> I have not heard from too many of you about activities for planning a 
>> new Data Center run by the LTER IM community.
>>
>> So I am writing to nudge you to take a look at the note below and the 
>> attached documents and let me know if you have any thoughts, 
>> concerns, etc.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> PEter
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Peter M. Groffman
>> Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
>> 2801 Sharon Turnpike
>> Millbrook, NY 12545 USA
>> Phone: (845) 677-7600, ext. 128
>> FAX: (845) 677-5976
>> E-mail: groffmanp at caryinstitute.org <mailto:groffmanp at caryinstitute.org>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*Peter Groffman [mailto:groffmanp at caryinstitute.org 
>> <mailto:groffmanp at caryinstitute.org>]
>> *Sent:*Sunday, June 28, 2015 1:56 PM
>> *To:*'site-exec at lternet.edu <mailto:site-exec at lternet.edu>'
>> *Subject:*LTER Data Center update
>>
>> Dear LTER Site PI’s,
>>
>> As you know, a group of LTER Information Managers (IM) has been 
>> having discussions with Saran Twombly at NSF to determine if the new 
>> Data Center could be run by the LTER IM community.  As discussed at 
>> the Science Council meeting this is a very exciting development, but 
>> one that requires lots of discussion and support from the sites.  
>> Margaret O’Brien has been doing an excellent job of keeping the 
>> Executive Board (EB) up to date and I have attached a couple of draft 
>> documents that she produced describing the current (and evolving) 
>> thinking about the structure and function of the center.
>>
>> Key current issues under discussion include:
>> ·Will a split between fiscal and intellectual entities introduce 
>> complications and/or double-overhead costs?
>> ·The composition of the governance committee, e.g., should this be 
>> voluntary/elected like the current IM Committee, or should there be a 
>> regular rotation like the EB?
>> ·What structure might help even out the sites' engagement and 
>> technical expertise in Information Management?
>> ·Should the EB have a voting member on the governance committee for 
>> more direct involvement than the advising depicted in the draft diagram?
>>
>> A more general question is if the EB, as LTER leadership, should have 
>> 'a say' in the yes/no decision (of whether we should go forward with 
>> a proposal). In discussions at the EB meeting last week, the answer 
>> was generally 'no'. But I said I would reach out to the site PI's and 
>> urge you to think about what is going on and to let me know what you 
>> think positive or negative.
>>
>> So, please take a look at the attached documents, talk with your IM, 
>> and let me know what you think about what is going on.  NSF is keen 
>> to have network buy-in for this effort; we can't move ahead without 
>> broad (or maybe even full) support.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Peter M. Groffman
>> Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
>> 2801 Sharon Turnpike
>> Millbrook, NY 12545 USA
>> Phone:  (845) 677-7600, ext. 128
>> FAX: (845) 677-5976
>> E-mail: groffmanp at caryinstitute.org <mailto:groffmanp at caryinstitute.org>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>


-- 

Inigo San Gil
+1 505 277 2625
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=foIppL4AAAAJ&hl=en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lternet.edu/pipermail/mcm-pi/attachments/20150727/8bc20983/attachment-0001.html>