January 2016 Virtual Water Cooler

imexec vtc notes 22 jan 2016

philip, margaret, wade, jonathan, yang, gastil, corinna, james

nimo proposal is submitted.
some scientists had marked comments. Involving the scientists.
timeline st set out: nsf til mid march then funding mid april; will go thru review
got off-campus rate for UW and UCSB but not for UNM

possibly IMs will get voting rights on EB as part of a by-law re-write.

eb plans to discuss by-laws. Put off for future dedicated call.
change in org from lno is natl adv board. one option is to cease it in favor of determine what advice they want and then form a board for that.
examine committees in network and how they interact.

synth wg coming up. rfp out now. interaction w data. march 23 deadline; decision early may.
Coordination with nimo.
synth wg in NCO model diff from LNO model. NCEAS wg process. Outside reviewers (3 out, 3 lter). EB will rec. reviewrs. Focus on using LTER data. Specifically say proposers should use data from more than one site, plus outside data.
Encourage proposers to include a data mgr familiar with this data. Can request a part-time data processer person during wg.
Require adhere to data policies of the network; a person must be designated to be sure that happens. Also need a tech laison with high skill set. One person can fill those 3 roles.
Research Assistant funding may be requested; RA at NCEAS.

eb comments on nimo latest draft positive. voted to endorse. then there were add’ comments straight to cg. there remains concern at eb re coupling btwn IM and Scientists. Recognise because sci do not engage with data mgmt.
EB willing to figure out how to make this work; mech unknown.

Potential tasks a synth WG may have and best way to accomplish those.
NIMO may be expected to fill gaps at syth/LNCO wg needs.
This function is not explicit in NIMO proposal.

Sci Council May 16, 2016. Host is MCR LTER at NCEAS downtown SB.
Smaller than 40 people. May have 2nd each site be remote.

Transition proposal to fund DC approved. SC added funds to travel to iLTER at Kruger Natl Park, South Africa, October.
PASTA-PLUS MS & DC proposal


IMC Meeting 2016

AND (HJ Andrews)
Sep 19 earliest arrival date.
Well equipped, lots of facilities.
2K total plus $325/per person
Was calculated for 40 people, 3 nights.

LNCO not comfy with paying for IMC meeting.
Frank says would pay 1st year if NIMO pays subsequent years.

10K facility
14.5K flights
total 25K (lower than past years)

airfares about the same for the three location options

at UCSB. Could invite LNCO which is 10 miles away.
Conference service on campus. Dorms.
Only available until Labor Day.
No ground transport needed. Simple.


Baltimore LTER but meeting in New York, Cary Inst.
2K of forest. 5 or 6 old farm houses used for housing. Out of the way.
Backwoodsy. 15-passenger vans to get around.
Comfy meeting facilities.
Food: can cook in the plant science building and the residences. Food is not provided. (Cook for yourself.) Restaurants are not close. Millbrook closes at night. Perkipsie 10 miles/ 30min.
Group would be split between two to four houses.
Asked about September, after field season. September ok.

Baltimore itself. Hotel + University. Hotels are about $120. Airport is near the university.

From UCSB, field trip to NCEAS is just a trip downtown.
Chance to meet personnel there, data analysts, programmers, and to see facilities.
Not a big place.

Timing for UCSB housing: August has best availability.
Do not want to overlap with ESA. (Sunday, August 7 – Friday, August 12, 2016, Florida)
Should check dates with NCEAS.

2 or 3 whole days. Not a half-day. Mon, Fri travel. 4 nights.

Earlier in the summer better for transition work.


what to do with our committees if nimo comes thru?

NIMO governance structure that we all decided on.
4 IMs plus Kristin, Margaret & Paul on committee.

non-voting members (margaret, kristin)
PIs (corinna, paul) with voting rights.

Benevolent dictatorship

PI could have veto rights rather than voting rights.

we need to go all-in on this 3-year experiment. Do it in new way. Not ad hoc.

consider imexec and nisac. Fold-in to nimo?
nimo will require a lot of input. other committees could dilute.

interactions btwn nimo and lnco will cover what imexec and nisac did (or wanted to do).

nisac has shifted from directed to umbrella or review body. Untethered recently.

sci and im working on practical advancement - what nimo oc will do.

zero-ground for wg formation. Not just because done in the past.

too much “us” vs “them”.
sci vs im
IMs vs LNO
level the playing field, opportunity to leave that polarized thinking behind.
If we want change we must do things differently.
An only-IM commitee would continue the us-vs-them thinking.

This may be the last annual IMC meeting that is just us.

In past, ie EML implementation, seemed not science-oriented at least short term.
Now sci depend on us for DOIs and data prep.
Make clear we are in this together (IMs and Sci.)

Still not obvious to sci in general how data management advances ecology.

we can make data mgmt more practical, feasible.

increase sci particp at annual imc meeting. invite open invite 6 places for sci, tell us why you want to be one of them.

sc this year is populations. possible follow-on work.

timing of imexec to go away perhaps at this summer’s imc meeting.

one option is to assume the existing rotation of imexec, including rotation years, to seed the nimo op com.

assign mob inform eb what we are considering for migration path

expect heat from some corners. Thos who have strong feelings about existing IMC culture, ToR, pre-existing standing commitees. With EB backing can make sense of rolling imexec and nisac into new enterprise. A strong way to present.

a graphic to describe the migration

what are our priorities over next 3 years.
Why doing this is to assist in these priorities.

gettign people to suggest mechanisms for accomplishing those priorities.
not always a commttee that gets something done.

reduction in resources to support committe travel.
more targeted collab around nimo activities, online.
move away from formalized comm into more targeted collab.
do not want to carry luggage into new model.

what are our priorities

time and money, collab overhead. future smaller amount of money.
people’s time is money and we need to reduce that collab overhead.

nimo cannot be an “add”. It must be a “move”.
replacement of our current dymanics.

perhaps present as a discussion to imc rather than a set decision.
How do we move on our priorities.
Others may have same opinon as ws. Perhaps there is concensus.
Next water cooler.

perhaps email. Venue for contributing opinion.

pre-cursor to water cooler.

next eb meeting is… early Feb.
next watercooler Feb 1 and 2.

pressure to step down as imc chair because no longer funded by cap lter.
logistically complicated. forwarding to Steven Earl.
ASked for candidates in December.
Term is up this summer anyway.

ClimDB is dormant. Harvester broke last fall, bad network card, broke again. No new data in database. ClimDB has taken itself out.

Unit dictionary now defunct.

pasta reporting tool no longer works. nobody was using it anyway.