September 2016 Virtual Water Cooler

IM Minutes
September 12, 2016

Gastil leading. 16 site IMs plus Mark Schildauer from NCO attending. Zoom meeting is being recorded as video.
1) EB Report:

EB met August 29. NSF has provided guidance for LTER governance. Science Council and EB meetings will be prioritized. IMC meetings won’t be part of core budget. All Site PIs and NSF will meet online. Mini-symposium planned for Feb or March 2017. EB welcomed Wade as new IMC rep. 2017 SC meeting will be at NTL. 2018 Hubbard Brook. NCO and EB still outlining roles. NCO will refer to Strategic & Implementation Plan (SIP).

2) Working group to create IM training materials.

We expect three new LTER sites. Site IM turnover. We all need professional development. IMC could guide IM training. Matt Jones is going to develop IM Training materials for Arctic Data Center (ADC). These will be online before the new sites are up and running. But sites need to know more than just NCEAS tools. Bigger perspectives of all tools available.

John: Team of mentors might be more effective way to help new IM sites. Materials OK, but this would be better. EDI will need materials. Who wants to be part of working group? John, Stevan, and Jonathan volunteered. Mark S. can advise. EDI emphasizes streamlining PASTA route. Arctic Data Centers will focus on Metacat route. Two perspectives.

Yes, IMC should assist new IMs with becoming aware of solutions that LTER has developed.

New LTER site proposal writers have mostly contacted a site IM to get some help. Hap talked with some of these folks from ocean sciences…. They want to know what options are!

Stevan: There are 26 LTER sites, and we all manage data in a different way. It would be helpful to have a diversity of systems represented in training materials.

Suzanne: Website committee has begun discussions about keeping a place on the site for training materials.

Mark: Hap and Corinna – how did you respond to queries from prospective new sites? Was there a general response to each or a custom response to each?

Gastil: Only publicly-available resources were given to new proposers (NSF told MCR PI to do this). Corinna and Margaret received no such direction from NSF.

Hap: had personal meeting with Woods Hole scientists. What promises did they need to make in IM plan? How did PIE and ARC do IM?

John: Extended conversation with one prospective PI. He pointed them to resources that were available on internet. DEIMS. GCE Toolbox.

3) Feedback on email lists

Google doc of email lists that LNO managed. NCO has provided "List of Lists" – which lists should be deleted?
See list of email lists and we have edit privileges: Mark as appropriate.
Marty is probably going to use Google Groups to manage small working group email lists.

Jason: Would be nice to have a central location with a list of working group email lists.

Mark: NCO should try to collate a lot of the possible interest groups. UC has permission to use Google as approved software suite. Empower individuals to create ad hoc collaborations. Need a balance between groups of interest as opposed to official LTER/NCO sanctioned lists.

John: We do need to have a place to keep lists… it’s a way of keeping track of who was working on projects when.

Corinna: Google groups could be linked to IM website.

4) ORCID IDs: talked about at annual meeting. It’s a good thing. One recommendation: Each site IM should get their own ORCID ID. When we begin to advocate this with PIs and students, we then know how easy it is. Our next watercooler will be about ORCID IDs.

Mark: Any value in having a doc to describe the value of ORCID IDs? Social Security Number of Science. Elsevier, Springer, Wiley are all supporting or endorsing ORCIDs as definitive identifier. Use this doc to convince scientists to get ORCID ID.

John: Bulleted list of major points and advantages to post on web and customize for our site.
Corinna: NSF uses ORCID on Fastlane.

Gastil: Getting ID itself is fast. Connecting it to everything else could be time investment.

John: Loading-in education pretty fast. Longest – putting in bibliographic materials. If bibliographic materials are in database, could offer as a service to PIs populating the bib in ORCID.

5) Working group on IM Review Criteria

Saran said that IM Review Criteria are used. But they are out of date (2009 was last document update).
Kristin, Yang, and John volunteered to be on team to update these review criteria. Suzanne also, but not this year. Kristin will lead.

Corinna: invite new NSF people to another water cooler to get their perspectives on Review Criteria.

6) ILTER wants sites listed in registry of ILTER sites.Discussed over the weekend by Marty and Peter Groffman. Gastil encourages sites to register. Contact Marty if someone needs help.

Corinna: Why are we doing this? How will info be used? NTL data don’t fit the site template very well.

Issues: Giving us a deadline and requirement should be accompanied by list of benefits. Why not fund somebody to get all this info that is already available online.? Not synchronized with our siteDB. We would like our sites' existence and characteristics to be known by ILTER, but entering this info again (as for CZO, etc) is a burden!

A good solution might be to have a link to our SiteDB from the ILTER website.

If they’re going to make requests, then they need to respond. Some experienced no response from ILTER people.

7) Montly IMC Water Cooler VTC scheduling Is one VTC time enough?

Suzanne: We should survey the iMs to fine the best time for everyone.
8) Other:

Mark S. First LTER Synthesis group will meet at NCEAS starting on Friday. Mark will familiarize them with IT. Margaret will be there also. Greg Sokol one of the leaders.