SAWG MTG Minutes 2009-05-01

From NGDCWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

In Attendance

  • Phil Jones
  • Drew Saunders
  • Dan Kowal
  • Jeremy Throwe
  • Scott McCormick
  • Anna Milan
  • Tess Brandon
  • Don Collins

KT Update

  • Jeremy submitted a work request .
  • There is a road block. Contractors can't proceed without a govt. directive.
  • Here still pursuing. Will work with Bob Rank.
  • Can take a week or two after approval to implement.

SPSRB Interaction

  • Dan reviewed the two key issues Tom Schott would like to discuss with the group:
    • Archive Assessment step and funding.
    • Understand the process to identify data ceter resource to work with the SBSRB on the SAs.
  • Dan discussed that the first issue is more a a COWG-COPB issue and will keep Eric Kihn in the loop as he's now the new chair of the COWG.
  • When we meet with Tom in the future, can discuss:
    • The level of effort involved in the SA may very depending upon the data set.
    • Contact the data centers asap in the process.
    • Look at the SPSRB Process side by side with the Archive approval process and discuss where to merge the two.
    • Dan will contact Tom about meeting May 29.

Reviewed Recommendation Package - NODC

  • Discussed budget assessment in the process. In the Coast Watch example, there was funding included from the data provider to cover initial archive costs such as special search/access interfaces for CLASS to build for the data set. However, there is no funding for long-term data stewardship - no cost model exists.
  • Tess presented the package to the COWG who then moved it up the chain to the COPB. This would be the format for all rec. pacakges. A data center rep. delivers a proposal perhaps in this format to the COWG first.
  • Discussed at what point is a proposal ready to be presented to the COWG?
  • Anna wondered if the Rec. Package is within the scope of this group? Further discussions needed about this. However, there is a lot of connection between information gathered at every stage with the SA being at the end of the process. Thus, the SAWG would have a vested interest in the Rec. Package format.

Request to Archive

  • Discussed the necessity of producing a monthly report on R-to-A as it's described in the Appraisal/Approval Guidelines.
  • Data Center reps. discussed how information is being presented to their directors currently.
  • Discussed if the COPB would like to be briefed and if so, we should think about a consistent format (what kinds of information) is delivered to them.
  • Scott mentioned the importance of briefing them on what SAs are currently on the plate. Phil reminded the group about the NCDC and NGDC tracking approaches.

Final Discussion Items

  • Don Collins interested in how long it takes to go through the whole process (Request to Archive). He discussed the NODC automated vs. manual delivery of data requests and the challenges tracking the status of each.
  • NGDC discussed the "no brainer" decisions when approving requests based on data collections we currently service - have the machinery in place; but still wrestle with the issue of "Does every approved request need an SA."
  • Phil wants feedback on using the SAWG's current SA Template as an exercise for the GOES-R test data proposal.

Next Meeting

  • May 15, 1 PM, EST. Phil may not be able to join.
Personal tools