10/23/2015
PI Telecon Minutes
Tim W, Bill M, Zach B, Mark S, Sue B, Cliff, Kitty, Cheryl D., Gordon G, Thanos, Steve H,
Michelle, Suzanne, Lou, Anthony, Whendee S.
Cheryl Dybas, NSF, discussed communication and how we can better interact with
her/NSF with respect to outreach, media, etc.
- Cheryl talked about news outreach from the CZOs. There are two main channels,
(1) presentations at major conferences and (2) peer reviewed journals. Other
outlets are workshops and visits to other CZOs (tough with little travel money).
There are NSF Discoveries articles (about 8) that she would like to expand on to
cover the new CZOs that haven’t been represented yet.
- Cheryl will not be attending AGU, keep in mind uploading press releases and to
send her news about any session.
- She noted CZOs are great about getting in touch about forthcoming journal
articles but timing between notice and publication date is a problem. Asked to
let her know as soon as the paper is accepted, only those with direct and clear
link to NSF funding. Does the grant you cited actually relate to the research that
is being done? When planning a news release of a publication, she needs a
contact for the university’s news office. Online publication has become a
challenge; so early notice of the publication to NSF will help to get the news out.
- Tim asked about the best way to get the discovery articles for new CZOs and if
there is any consideration of going back to update previously covered CZOs?
- Cheryl will contact the PIs of new CZOs. Won’t update the previous ones until all
have been covered once.
- Suzanne had a problem where the paper came out 2 months ahead online of the
print date.
- Cheryl says this is important to note, the date to go by is the online publication
date not the print pub date.
- Contact Cheryl with any questions regarding any of this.
- ACTION: Tim will get the URLs for AGU events to Cheryl.
Data Project
- Anthony has completed 5 data meetings. Eel has not scheduled yet. In the
process of planning workshops for this winter and to continue outreach “streak”.
He felt like projects are in good shape, and that there is more CZOs can do with
moving data into the system.
- Kitty asked if the bugs have been worked out in the specimen templates.
- Anthony—these are not available to go live, team is working on improving ODM2
Vocab that has caused issues. Will be complete remaining 3 consults next week.
- Anthony will try to get a list of ideas about future outreach ideas. All CZOs are
encouraged to visit ‘submit data’ tab to see that it has been expanded to 10
pages with detailed instructions on sharing the data (released a month ago)
-
-
Lou—no cost extension end of project is in March. Is there a plan for after that?
Anthony is under the impression there is no plan from NSF. Data is important to
them but not ready to have a conversation
Lou thinks we collectively need to press NSF on this topic since there is no action.
Anthony—CZO data team is part of another project (Information, Science &
Engineering) that is highly integrated with entire CZO network but has been on
hold and has received a no cost extension till the end of Nov. 2016. CZO user
support seems to be a large part of the next phase. Interested in feedback from
community about upcoming priorities.
Suzanne—continue this conversation sooner rather than later.
Annual Meetings
- Tim reminds group that NEC had decided on one meeting a year but there was
feedback against this from the community.
- Suzanne— is this separate from strategic planning in Feb. 2016?
- Tim is talking about the prior notion of having two meetings a year (spring & fall
meeting) to visit each of the CZOs and every other year there would be All-hands
meetings. Since decided to forgo this to have one meeting a year. Strategic
planning meeting is separate from these spring and fall site meetings.
- Suzanne—but NSF wants to also have a meeting next Fall? That would constitute
an occasion in which we are all together -- but we also want our own meeting.
- Tim—Yes, NSF wants to have a meeting in Fall 2016 that constitutes a review of
the network, not individual sites and NO.
- Gordon—Believes in value of seeing the sites but need to accomplish this
without overburdening everyone -- because the new review requirements seem
to be adding onto work loads.
- Tim—Richard recently stated that he fully grasps the importance of the All-hands
meetings and will try to find funds for the near future. Up until recently, this was
not a possibility.
- Sue thinks we should visit a CZO next year.
- Tim thinks we have agreed to Reynolds Creek in the Fall.
- Suzanne recalls talking about Eel River in the Spring.
- Tim—do we want one field meeting a year?
- Sue is happy with one field meeting.
- Suzanne—we already have two meetings next year (strategic meeting and NSF
fall meeting), certainly shouldn’t have another meeting next year.
- Mark says week of Sept 19th for Reynolds Creek meeting
- Meetings in 2016:
1. Strategic meeting: Feb 3rd-5th
2. Reynolds Creek: week of Sept. 19th
3. NSF: Fall
- Mark is thinking about 2.5 or 3 days (1 day of meeting, 1 day of field, ½ to finish
up)
NSF
-
-
-
-
-
-
Suzanne—does anyone have constraints on this week?
Sue B has a conference in Boulder CO on the 17th, better earlier in the week
ACTION: Kitty & Mark will look into logistics and circulate a suggested dates.
Tim brings up the top down approach in this program and the implications of
that. Dan’s email talked about each CZO spending 2 person months preparing for
the virtual reviews.
Sue thinks it is good to give NSF an idea of how long we spend preparing for
review. Sue will be going to NSF on Nov. 30 to give a talk and plans on bringing
up this process.
Gordon stated that he is in a position to hear both sides, is sympathetic to both.
NSF says that the review process comes with the territory and you need to deal
with it. Suggest not using cred with NSF to complain unless it is dire. Better
strategy to blow NSF out of the water with science and then make argument to
lessen reporting requirements in the future.
Suzann talked to Carol Frost and got the message that they do not want to hear
complaints. She thinks Gordon is right, we might do more harm then good.
Worried that the amount of metrics required for the reverse site visit
deemphasizes the science, and that something like a lack of meeting minutes will
come back to haunt her review.
Gordon says NSF is definitely interested in the cool science. A complaint is not
going to go well given their structure.
Sue doesn’t understand the change from the encouragement of the past to
feeling like we are being beaten up all the time. Does not think it was
warranted. Would like to reflect that back to NSF.
Gordon says there are obvious reasons for that change: due to rearrangement at
NSF, and collective feeling in the federal gov. right now.
Sue does not disagree but didn’t think we should simply accept that?
Gordon thinks the only antidote is to show NSF that they made a good
investment – leave them with a good vibe about the CZO program.
Sue talked to Richard about the feedback that Tim and Lou received at NO
review and how they had not the asked the PIs for feedback. They do respond to
pressure. Thinks program officers need good science but they also need some
feedback.
Gordon thinks NSF is aware of the vibe within the community and does not need
more feedback now because they know it.