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:
11 July 2014
                                                                      
Attending:  Laura, Rebecca, Amber, John, Dave

Regrets: Bruce


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 activities/outcomes:
            

        1.1 (Leftover from previous meetings - 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  too late for that, need to pick another one.
                
                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.  
                What was discussed/decided at the CCIT and DUG meetings?  --  move the checkbox from search  page to results page, remain checked by default, initial draft in development environment.
                
                  >>> 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 now turned on.  There was some confusion about what it meant to be "synchronizing";  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
    
    Future
        3. Old action items
             MN Documentation - MN Deployment and MN Ongoing Operations - holding  ready to pick up again, good feedback from DUG attendees that some of what we have is great, other areas need polishing, big thing is advertising what we do have available. Laura to do this>>>>  use Ask.dataone.org - where can I find? is there documentation on....?  
             
        4. Not-high profile issues
       
        5. Around the room
        Laura - working with Amber on some PEP items; ongoing discussions with XSEDE re: partnering with them as a Service Provider; things on my plate: apply redmine ticket generator to IARC and GBIF, pick up documentation again, support IoE (Institute on Ecosystems at Montana State - Seth Mason) in their implementation
        Rebecca - looking at the PEP items
        Dave - changes to EDAC MN (background: NM EPSCoR data needs to be replicated, so the new node will contain all the GStore stuff (currently in EDAC) as well as the EPSCoR stuff, they are currently saying they want a tier 4 MN, but if all they want is to have their data replicated, they can do with a tier 1 - need to discuss with Soren et al. about this (tier 1 vs 4) and will EDAC MN still exist.  
                - redmine upgrade schedule in next two weeks
        John - nothing today - the XSEDE thing will be interesting
        Amber - nothing today