[LTER-mcm-pi] LTER Data Center views

Tue Jul 28 02:42:51 MDT 2015

Thanks for these thoughts and perspective, Inigo.  Certainly this is a bit more of an insider’s view than the rest of us have.

While I still am not crystal clear on the details of the proposed vision, one aspect that seems to underlie this effort is a common IM or db architecture for all sites (correct me if I’m wrong).  That’s potentially a significant challenge to any site that does not already have an architecture that is similar to one that is being proposed (or would emerge) as the overhead costs required to shift to a different system would be steep and have to come out of the site grants (I presume, unless funding was provided by NSF for a one-time effort to get all sites on a common track).  On the ‘user’ end, if the way data was provided changed signicantly (i.e., formatting or grouping), then there’s a potential set of challenges to users within and beyond the network that rely on data.

Perhaps I’m mis-understanding and the goal is not to change all site IM architectures but provide an efficient core services system that has a master db for all sites and much of the technichal detail about that master system are the subject of debate within the IM group.  If that’s the case, then the challenge comes back to site IM support having to interface/support both their site systems and the main core system.  That is, having to work with potentially different db formats, etc.  That still represents a bit of inefficiency that is likely paid by most site grants, and probably also represents the current approach.

I think that the evolution of 25+ site IM approaches over 20+ years puts us in a challenging space if the goal is to have common architectures across all sites, and as a network we will have to balance the investments in IM efficiencies with site needs and contexts.

cheers
-Mike

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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

On Jul 27, 2015, at 10:05 AM, Inigo San Gil <isangil at lternet.edu<mailto:isangil at lternet.edu>> wrote:

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><mailto:groffmanp at caryinstitute.org>
To:     site-exec <site-exec at lternet.edu><mailto: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/20150728/bcb0d597/attachment-0001.html>