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: * https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/698027049 20 June 2014 Attending: Laura, John, Rebecca, Amber, Bruce Regrets: Dave Agenda: NOTE: New meeting time at least through the end of July - 2:30p Eastern 1. High profile issues (or current items of interest) >>> DUG prep: slides for session 2 (MN showcase/lightning talks), etc. 2014 presenters: * GLEON (Corinna) - slides submitted * NPN (Laura) - slides submitted * PPBio (Flavia) - awaiting slides * LTER (Mark) - awaiting slides * KNB (Chris) - awaiting slides * MPC (Tracy) - slides submitted Laura/Amber/Chris to work on the overview part of Session 2; also any leading/summary info for sessions 3 and 4 (forum/network/holdings) - send to Bruce (will be in SF) 2013 presenters (updating their information; NOT presenting) - made available on the public website * EDAC - awaiting response * TFRI - Laura assisting * USGS - Mike says Monday, hopefully * eBird - Laura assisting * Dryad - info submitted * SEAD - Laura assisting * NKN - Greg says Monday, hopefully 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; Stephen says they have reinstalled their certs and their "MN is configured to allow harvesting", but I think they haven't gotten the message to the CNs yet. Working. Memorandum of Understanding - this would be a good thing to have with MNs (and not get legal departments involved) - LT to address. 2. Status of upcoming MNs * Y5Q4 * LTER-Europe (3232) - announced 6/18/14 * EDAC (3221) - announced the tier 1 MN 6/23/14; anticipate a tier 4 MN later in the year * DFC (3532) - Bruce has corresponded with Lisa; following up - Rebecca: talked with Reagan, they plan to do one iRods installation (a NC piece of CUASHI) * they plan to have their MN up and running by October (before their RSV) * MPC (3708) - registering in sandbox - plan to meet f2f at DUG, Roger will probably call in * ORNL MNs (RGD (4248) and EDORA (4247)) - these metadata-only MNs are in testing. They are different in that neither "owns" the data for which they are exposing metadata, unlike other MNs who have chosen to expose metadata-only, perhaps for the time being. Discussions at CCIT meeting this week reinforced previous conference calls. * GLEON (3422) - Corinna presenting at DUG. * PPBio (3748) - Flavia presenting at DUG. * NKN (3238) - They had had some issues and in the process of rebuilding, they decided to go with a redhat install rather than ubuntu; working. * SAEON (3205) - Chris is working with Alex to find a time when they can upgrade their metacat (Laura to talk with Chris) Future * FigShare??? Bruce in discussions with FigShare folks last week at OR. email conversations continuing; FigShare as either an ITK element or as a MN or both.; Dan Valen (FigShare) will be at the DUG. * NODC - revisit, target for next 18mos (Bruce/Matt) * iPlant (see what happens with iRods at DFC) * TERN Australia (4286): Plan to meet with Nikki Thurgate at the DUG (Sunday 4p - whoops - change that to 4:30 - LM email Nikki). (Bruce - call about "swinging by" where Nikki is in CO around that time) * IARC (International Arctic Research Center) (4700) - Jim is awaiting word on $$ and working on other projects in the meantime. (Rebecca to check on PO for his work) (this is a GeoNetwork node) * EU BON -- Looking to deploy a test MN (probably Sierra Nevada - August/Sept in Albuquerque) in the next 6-9 months. 3. Old action items MN Documentation - MN Deployment and MN Ongoing Operations - holding 4. Not-high profile issues * Redmine ticket generator - plan to apply to IARC and GBIF (Roger gave me some instructions - now I have to just do it! - LM) 5. Around the room Bruce - nothing other than above Rebecca - nope Amber - nope John - nothing else Laura - nothing other than above 1.1 (Leftover from last time - don't want to remove from this epad yet) >>>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.