EarthCube Governance Roadmap and Workshops

Abstract/Agenda: 

The National Science Foundation, through its EarthCube initiative, is supporting the development of community-guided cyberinfrastructure to integrate data and information for knowledge management across the Geosciences. This breakout will introduce the Governance Roadmap which is being developed out of a series of collaborative virtual workshops to be held during April and May of 2012 (information on the workshops can be found at http://earthcube.ning.com/). This session will review the results of the NSF EarthCube workshop (June 12-14 in DC) and discuss next steps to implementing a 10-year roadmap for community organization and governance.

Notes: 

Earthcube: how do we organize, manager, and govern?

  • Discuss Chorette, next step due Aug 15
    • Meeting last Tuesday
    • Present governance model from Tuesday
    • Want discussion on framework/directions
  • What is earthcube
    • 6 blind monks – describe elephant differently
    • One of the challenges is to accommodate the different vision, requirements, and needs for the community
  • NSF – geosciences community
  • There are a number of concept teams, special interest groups
    • Came together at Charrette in June
    • Hope for concept groups come out of this and redefine and combine session
    • Original organization may more based on individual road maps
  • Since Nov 2011 – 2 charrette
    • There will be concept prototyping and working groups reports that will go through iterative cycle to build the earthcube concept
    • Move forward over the last 5 years
  • One of the parts that came out of the last few months – earthcube brings together system of systems
    • They function and operate – how do we integrate/leverage resources
    • Also has enterprise support – mainly have cyberinfrastruture
    • There are also a series of communities & long tail sciences
    • Across academia, gov, industry, NGOs
    • But Earthcube is a defined cluster – need to leverage and collaborate outside of this community
    • Who makes decision, sets standards, allocates resources
    • Coordinated, meet needs, strategic and tactical oversight
  • Commodity governance group – align practices and procedure with goals, purposes and values – opposed to management activities
  • Define governance – processes, structure, and organization elements that determine…
  • Look at what has been done at other infrastructure – out of social science and business communities
    • Infrastructure development around world
      • A lot of diff buildings
      • Not the same end as though
      • Modular, incremental
      • Developed locally
      • Grows as community expands
    • Need to have flexible governance to allow for growth
  • Technology adoption relative to population – develop slowly at first then increased rapidly – around 70-90% then there is a long tail of adopters over a long period
    • Governance needs evolve as it is adopted
    • Internet – started with DARPA… then NSF… and other… then pulled back and governance is very different
    • There is not governing entities for the electric grids – regulated separately –no overall
    • No infrastructure on a national or global scale have a governing body
    • Need governing body to get it launch – then it should take off on its own – need to facilitate parts functional on its own
  • Concept architecture
    • Need work with the governance structure of each group
  • Looked at role of IT governance
    • There are 7 different types of governance structure for different aspects of IT in corporate world and NGOs
    • From benevolent dictatorship to earthcube monarchy to federal to anarchy (user-driven)
    • Variation across organization as to how they make decision
    • There is not a sign over-arching governing models
      • Multiple processes and a single organization will use different process for what they want to accomplish
    • There is a sense in scientific world – we will come to a consensus and we will have agreement – not always the best method
  • Different version of governance framework than this morning (similar)
    • Geosciences interoperability institute
    • Has an executive committee – with structure, bylaws… effective tool for making decision
    • Other groups in earthcube are still addressing this issue – pros & cons… have done research
  • NSF funds individual project – individual work group with earthcube
    • Each goes to NSF to carry out function inside cyberinfastrcture
    • Need to be Earthcube office – get NSF money and dictate how and who get its
      • That would only work for NSF money – what about the rest
      • This is one model – not likely
      • May challenge NSF want/ability to hand off money
  • Decentralized government
    • Funding source into different parts
    • Same model as the internet
    • Internet has no central government for policy or technology
    • Each organization has own standards… do not report to each other
    • Light touch vs. heavy hand
      • An earthcube community can develop via consensus and these will be adopted by earthcube community
      • Ex. When want NSF proposal say “I’m compliant with earthcube”
  • Size of budget
    • Earthcube is a small part of NSF funding
    • NSF, NASA above, NIH above
    • CIF21 – cyberinfastructure in NSF
    • Part of Big data part of government
    • This only shows part of the government funding options
      • If doing job right – can help jumpstart CIF21 & influence cyberinfastructure in the government… global involvement
  • June 2012 Charrette
    • Difference in what governance is between groups
    • Governance ask what each group need
    • Other groups expected them to give the governance model they needed to apply
      • That was a disconnect
    • Came out with a roadmap – clearlier understanding
      • Did not assume implement roadmap
    • Ad-hoc governance Steering committee will continue
    • Decide framework – will deliver to NSF by Aug 15 (steps 1 and 2 of road map)
      • Want community engagement process
    • Roadmaps of working groups – did not have governance issues
      • Want 1-on-1 working group concept team
      • Looking at how to implement governance
      • Do you have requirements/needs that will affect other groups – need integration
  • Now – roadmap milestone
    • Determine responsibility and authorities
    • Identify interim governance committee
    • Determine the initial governance framework – will not be permanent – unknown use-life
    • Want it implement by Dec 31, 2012 (aggressive schedule)
  • Next will work on charter to NSF
    • Talking about context solicitation
    • Want this out asap – framework could be turning into NSF
  • Need to develop engagement plan – updated slides based from morning discussion
    • Use existing workshop to vet governance (this is first)
  • Focus on 5-10 enterprise-level governance function
    • 99 functions came out of other meeting
    • What are the processes to carry out functions
    • Compare these processes to different governance models
  • Green are domain services – you do it yourself
    • Blue – common
    • Red – touch points – develop on own – but have to be compatible with other  groups
  • Governance functions
    • Strategy
    • Administration
    • Facilitating data, services, infrastructure and software capabilities
    • Engagement with science domains
    • Interaction with stakeholders/community
      • Try to put other 99 into the 5
  • Started to set up framework with 5 functions across and then 3 process (decision, alignment, communication) – then want governance archetype defined by someone (or never decides)
  • Under data, services, infrastructure, software
    • System engineering, development and integration of architecture
      • Decision – ID and adopt Earthcube gridlines  - how compliant
      • Alignment – incentives to participate in and use Earthcube
      • Communication – facilitate discussion, seek needs, priorities, gaps, promote funders
    • Architecture maintenance and system support
    • Identify and mange the touch points
  • Guiding principles
    • Science-driven
    • Open and transparent
    • Globally driven …. (all exactly from slides)
  • Framework recommendations
    • Initial umbrella or coordinating body to get this up and running
    • Specific approach – do not define organization structure – need to fit goals and community
  • Idea is that bidders would propose organization model to carry out functions, achieve goals of Earthcube and NSF
  • Want governing body in place by early 2013
  • What are the other functions
  • What do you thing of the process, framework, recommendations
  • How should we be interacting with ESIP community

Questions

  • Bob (Columbia) – of 99 function – plan select 5 or 10
    • Made super functions – expect all cluster under these 5
    • (bob) – common touch point or community
      • Not sure described that way
      • Functions look at how interact
      • Want to identify functions are blue, green or red
  • In terms of classification (siri – national science data center) – don’t’ look at access as enterprise level function… computer and visualizing are specific
    • May have different registry that are connected – each domain will have different data model – if visualizing a 2 or 3D –
    • What is an enterprise level function – needs to be agreed upon
      • Will be put out for feedback… this is a quick map
    • Those that are in domain boxes – similar across different domain are candidate for touch point
    • Some functions will exist at different levels
    • There will be infrastructure for community – ex. environments
  • Dave (USGS) – like concept of expecting evolution of governance & being able to let that happen
    • Also – problem – putting boxes around things that may not need boxes
    • Need to balance document with boxes and innovation
    • Touch points was not meant as an organization diagram – functions not organizations – problem is there are so many preconceptions as to what is coming forward – functional description
    • (dave) this will be hard – governance to morph with changing system – why hard to define
  • Metadata (Kelly)
    • NSF has a wide variety of community – so use community level standards – need some for interoperability
    • Need basis for interoperability
    • Not impose a profile for community – just what is the minimum or optimum amount
    • Have recommendations – but expect at least a minimum amount
  • Sarah – first time presenting here – what is feedback from other communities
    • Largely within earthcube community – 150 at charrett
    • Some webinars – but limited
    • Just responding from the last charrett
    • Working to design this framework
    • Had webinars for funding agencies and international community (recorded and on ning site) – had good representatives but not good representation
  • Anne – see governance framework slide
    • Agreed on process on Tuesday
    • Big projects from NSF do not have an assigned governance…
    • Have requirements – community engagement, interact with science and technology… but not how to carry out function…. Proposer puts that together
    • Put a panel together to review the proposed function
    • List of 99 functions – from roadmaps – from webinar – from PI meeting from last week… still not a complete list yet – it will be iterative
    • Did not show all 99 functions

 

Attachments/Presentations: 
AttachmentSize
Office presentation icon GovernanceWorkshopESIPMeeting.ppt6.77 MB
Identifier: 
doi:10.7269/P3RF5RZX
Citation:
Allison, L.; Patten, K.; EarthCube Governance Roadmap and Workshops; Summer Meeting 2012. ESIP Commons , June 2012