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:
18 July 2014
                                                                    
Attending:   John Cobb, Laura, Dave, Rebecca, Mark

Regrets:  Amber, 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
        
        FOLLOW-UP -- DUG activities/outcomes:
            

        1.5   Current MNs
                 Memorandum of Understanding (re: operations and service expectations) - this would be a good thing to have with  MNs (and not get legal departments involved) - LT to address.  (This has impacts in the SANParks uptime issue as well as the recent CDL need-to-be-harvesting-all-the-time issue.)
                     ask CDL (and other MNs) if they know they control the harvest frequency - it's in the documentation but maybe everyone at the MN doesn't know about it
                     maybe compile a list of common hangups - ??
                
        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
        Rebecca - not today
        Dave - DSpace MN implementation coming along nicely, still work on logging aspect; 
                    OPeNDAP progressing well (James Gallagher), different parts working need to put things together
                    OpenScience repository - Andrew Sallans sent Dave a contact re: OS
                    Tim Robertson (GBIF) - making great progress (lots of email traffic, good questions, clarifications, etc.)
        John - nope
        Mark - nothing here
      
 

  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.