Member Node Wranglers  - please note time change to half-past the hour
    Fridays at 10:30 am Alaska
                    11:30 am Pacific
                    12:30 noon Mountain
                    1:30 pm Central
                    2:30 pm Eastern

Please note new GTM info, also:
20 June 2014
                                                                       
Attending:  Rebecca, Dave, Amber, Laura, Bruce

Regrets:  

Agenda: 

NOTE:  New meeting time at least through the end of July - 2:30p Eastern

        1. High profile issues (or current items of interest)
        
                >>>Purpose of MN Description Document (past and future) - past: identify data holdings (type, volume, etc.), operations, to aid in MN development.  future: ???  
                Intent is to describe the (potential) MN, identify the types/quantity/formats of data they hold, - perhaps we need a "friendlier" format, perhaps an interview process; 
                Workflow: should this information (MNDD) be collected at the beginning of the process, or is the way we've been doing it lately (after the fact) a new way of doing business??  Also consider if this information gathering (form or interview) is the best use of resources for those potential MNs who may or may not become a MN if implemented as a frist step.  Possibly change the workflow? Is a pdf the best was to view the information?
                Next steps:  Laura to come up with alternative(s) to current MNDD - content is good, but format/mechanism needs some work.  
                Another thing: Laura and Amber to look at workflow for last stages of implementation, test with EDAC
                
                Also -- how does the MN DD relate to the node document:
                    https://cn.dataone.org/cn/v1/node  - developers have/create this information (node registration, see updateNodeCapabilities)
                and redmine??    <--- work with redmine as mostly-authoritative source
                
                Could a spreadsheet be a viable solution?  Maybe.  A database would work.  In any case, some information is appropriately "private" - how would we handle that?
                
                
                >>>Question: revisit the default "only results with data"  checkbox to unchecked; what is the process for making this decision?   Let's bring it up at the DUG.  Dave suggests not having that checkbox at  the beginning of the search, but when you get results have a checkbox  there to specify all/only results with data.  Dave to talk with Skye re:  what it would involve.
                From 20120918 UA meeting notes: "Consider making "showing results as data" option post-search as a filter or ordering mechanism, rather than a pre-search filter."
                Dave will ensure this is brought up at the CCIT mtg next week; needs to be discussed/decided upon before any changes made.
                
                >>> Bob's feedback about the dashboard - he suggested a count of MNs on the dashboard (MNs, RNs), probably/maybe an easy thing to do a count of MNs and RNs and display
                
                >>> SANParks is often off-line because of their location; EDAC is sometimes non-responsive (could be due to their size).  Should we have performance expectations or requirements of a MN before they commit to participate in DataONE?  Would this present a barrier to a MN's participation?
                    SANParks is replicating (i.e. if they are off-line, their data is available from another site where their data is replicated).  
                    There was some talk previously of doing a metadata dump of a MN's content to help when a MN is unavailable for a time.
                    Check heartbeat of MN, if last check indicated down, put them last in the list of sources to check with the resolve function.
                
        1.5   Current MNs
                 CDL's synchronization is still turned off - email out to Stephen Abrams asking if they've updated their certificates post-heartbleed
                
        2. Status of upcoming MNs
    
    Future
        3. Old action items
             MN Documentation - MN Deployment and MN Ongoing Operations - holding
             
        4. Not-high profile issues
       
        5. Around the room
             Bruce - done for now
             Rebecca - nope
             Amber - nothing today, we'll need to work on DUG stuff (with Chris)
             Dave - CCIT meeting next week, DUG after