2012 Annual Business Meeting

2012 Annual Business Meeting

Time: January 5, 2012, 11am-12:30pm Place: Washington DC Conveners: Chris Lenhardt Speakers: Chris Lenhardt, Rob Raskin

Agenda

1. Call to Order and Review of Rules of Procedure: Chris Lenhardt
   • Quorum present
2. Announcement of Election Results: Rob Raskin
   1. New ESIP Leadership
   • President: Karl Benedict
   • VP: Annette Schloss
   • C&B: Rob Raskin
   • Ficom: Chuck Hutchinson
   • Partnership: John Scalone
   • Education: Becky Reed
   • IT & I: Matt Austin
   • Products and Serv: Ken Keiser
   1. New Partners:
   • Global Emissions InitiAtive (Type II)
   • Information INter national Associates (Type III)
   • Integrated Earth Data Applications(IEDA) (Type I)
   • In Situ Experience (Type III)
   • NCAR (Type II)
   • LASP (Type II)
   • USGS Community for Data Integration (Type II)
3. ESIP Type Caucuses - Reps for committees selected
   1. Reps:
   • Type I: Sayeed Chodhury
   • Type II: Brian Wilson
   • Type III: Stefan Falke
4. Discussion and Vote on Proposed Bylaws Changes -Presenter: Rob Raskin
   • Change Type 3 Member Definition - Category 3 ESIPs shall be engaged principally in the development and provision of Earth science applications.development, use or dissemination of Earth science information and applications for the purpose of commercial use, decision support, outreach, advocacy, or education.
   • Discussion: Rob presented the history of and read the amendment
   • Motion: to consider the proposed change by Karl
   • Seconded by: Chris Lenhardt
   • Final Action: Approved
5. Define replacement criteria for binding resolutions - Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote for passage.
   • Discussion: Rob presented and read the amendment. Replaced the unanimous with ⅔ because that is not practical.
     • Jeff from NOAA: Asked if a binding requirement had ever been proposed and an example of one.
     • Frew: Another example: Requirement to attend meetings to remain in good standing within ESIP
     • Peter Fox: What is the ⅔ a fraction of?
       • Rob: ⅔ of those present
     • Mark Parsons: If ⅔ of attendees is the requirement, then what is the quorum and resulting number to approve vote?
       • Rob: ½ of total active membership is quorum so ⅔ of ½ would be needed to pass.
     • Mark Parsons:
     • Motion 1: to amend amendment to make vote by electronic means
       • This would require that ⅔ of active members vote, not just those present
       • Discussion was about the numerator and denominator definitions of 2/3
     • Seconded by: ??-wasn’t
     • Action: Dropped?
     • Motion 2: ⅔ of all membership, not those present, add ‘of the Assembly’ to amendemnt
       • Discussion about active membership vs membership, What defines an active member
     • Seconded: Steve Kempler
     • Approved: voice vote, no dissent
     • Action: Now the Amendment reads: Add II.2.7: Any resolution imposing a binding requirement on any ESIP shall require a two-thirds approval vote of the assembly for passage.
     • Final Action: Approved
6. Add new Data Science and Stewardship Committee- Add VI.4.1: The ESIP Federation shall include a Standing Committee for Data Science and Stewardship. Its roles are:
   1. To develop, evolve, foster, and adopt best practices and standards that ensure continued and reliable information content, quality, and usability of Earth system science data for as long as they are deemed to be of value.
   2. To facilitate the long-term preservation and stewardship of Earth system science data.
   3. To facilitate reference to and access to Earth system science data.
      • Discussion: Rob- This committee would subsume the Preservation Cluster tasks
      • Questions about the title of the new Committee, manly about the broadness of the term ‘Data Science’
      • Data Life Cycle is another potential term to be used in title.
      • Stewardship alone in the title would imply a limited scope of the committee
      • Standard, Policies, and Best Practices in Technologies is another possibility
      • Motion: Amend the Amendment to change the name to ‘Sciene Data’ to ‘Life Cycle’
      • Seconded:
      • Discussion:
        • Terms should be transparent, data life cycle isn’t
        • Action: Withdrawn
      • Motion: To rename to Data Stewardship Committee
        • Seconded: multiple ??
        • Call to Question: Chris
        • Action: Approved by voice vote, no dissent
      • Motion:
        • Seconded:
        • Discussion: Data life cycle implies bad things, disagreement about definition. Annette-thinks b) already implies data life cycle
        • Call to question: Chris, properly Seconded
        • Action: Voice vote, 1 Aye, all others Nays, Chair approves
        • Action: Call to Question, Approved and Seconded
        • Final Action: Approved
7. Discussion and Vote on Proposed ESIP Data Sharing Principles and Discussion and Vote on ESIP Data Citation Guidelines
   • Presenter: Rob and Ruth, Data Stewardship and Preservation Cluster has drafted two non binding documents about data citation and sharing guidelines. The ESIP Assembly is being asked to approved these guidelines as best practices for ESIP members.
   • If approved these documents would be maintained by the new committee.

Ruth-Data Stewardship and Principles and Recommended Practices document is a set of best practices and guidelines not a binding document. Three sections on Data Stewardship for, 1) Data Creators, 2) Data Intermediaries, and 3) Data Users.

1. • Curt- This is a baseline, it will be further revised/improved in future.

Comment on the high bar set for data providers on information/metadata that must be provided to users. Data Users is a general term.

1. • Frew-Suggests that a motion be made that the new Stewardship Committee will be charged with managing/maintenance of this document and the data citation document and best practice for the Federation.
   • Motion: Frew
   • Seconded: Tamra
   • Motion to Amend: Peter Fox suggested that ‘Best’ be changed to ‘Recommended’ Text of motion would read “Charge the data stewardship committee with maintaining the recommended practices documents and keeping them up to date.“
     • The discussion is about the approval of documents or just a statement by the assembly recommending the development of similar themed documents.
   • Action: Approved by Voice vote, no dissent
   • Motion: Frew- Moves that we adopt the current documents as they stand as the baseline
   • Seconded: Mark
   • Discussion: Questions about commercial development and charging for data. Ruth-It is addressed by section 2 of the document. Ruth believes that these are not obstructive to Type III members. Legal issues are addressed in the document by stating that the document is superseded by existing legal/requirements of member organizations. There is a discussion about the strength of the recommendations. Example, will these become a requirement in the future rather than just a recommendation. The language in the document is absolute in some sections, a.g. ‘...shall be...’.
     • Mark: If ESIP can’t make a statement about Data Stewardship then who can?
     • Peter: Simple changes in wording could make the document better. This is what ESIP should be doing, putting statements out like this.

-response, these recommendations could be construed as requirements and make some not want to join ESIP.

1. • • Curt: This was discussed in the cluster
     • Peter: Either ESIP does this or agencies will do it without guidance, they are already doing it.
   • Discussion about the Citation Document using certain standards, won’t translate
   • Action: Voice vote: 1 Nay, all others Aye, decision of the chair is approved
   • Final Action: Voice vote: 1 Nay, all others Aye, decision of the chair is approved
2. Other Business
   • Chris: Chair for the newly created Stewardship Committee
     • Nomination: Curt Tilmes, no other nominations, approved by voice vote, no dissent
   • Bylaws be renumbered: Approved

Adjourned