Member Node Wranglers
    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:
15 August 2014
                                                         
Attending:  Laura, Rebecca, Bruce, Dave, Mark

Regrets: Amber 


Agenda: 

        1. High profile issues (or current items of interest
        
        MPC and Dublin Core - concern about creating a MPC-specific DC standard (is that appropriate, who maintains it, etc.), much discussion about how we can best meet MPC's immediate needs and still allow for future realignment (with DDI)
        GEO schema: https://schema.org/geo
        Can combine elements from GEO and dublin core into the "recommended" schema
        Keep this development in GitHub - DataONE and MPC can collaborate
        Spatial data is very important; identify required vs optional fields to allow current/future indexing
        MPC's CCIT POC TBD 
        
(Previous discussions)
        1.5   Current MNs
                 Dryad listObjects issue, see https://redmine.dataone.org/issues/6010 
                     Laura to check with Ryan before MNW
                   
                LTER transitioning from metacat instance to PASTA GMN; 
                    The PASTA GMN is behaving nicely in stage.  There are issues, however, with the old metacat data we are trying to bring over (see above).
                
        2. Status of upcoming MNs
     
    Future
        3. Old action items
               MN Documentation - MN Deployment and MN Ongoing Operations - Laura to  do  this  -- working on identifying needs and best methods to address  those  needs, including ask.dataone.org, documentation in mule1 or on   dataone.org, etc.

             
        4. Not-high profile issues
        
             Process for end-of-implemention (when/how to indicate a MN is  "upcoming" on the dashboard, etc.) - Laura and Amber - we had previously  decided that when a MN goes into stage testing, it is appropriate to  show them as an upcoming MN.  However, in redmine we don't currenty have  a status indicating what stage a MN is working in.  We have a "testing"  status, so we had thought we'd use that - when a MN changes status to  "testing", we can show it as upcoming.  We still need to explicitly  define the process and who does what when, and try it out on the next  MN(s) in the queue.
            Amber: maybe list them on web as "upcoming" when we go to staging -- but we need a redmine state to show that staging has started.   Dave to look and see if can notify Amber and Laura (and Bruce?) when  there are changes to the stage and production node lists. Need a redmine state to show that staging has started.
            
            (Was under Current MNs related to SANParks, CDL, etc.)
            LT  to address Memorandum of Understanding (re: operations and service expectations) between DataONE and MNs  -  is there anything I (LM) can be doing to move this along, draft something up, pull out the work previously done, etc.?? (Rebecca, Mark, & Laura have been tasked with this and will begin work week of 8/11)  -- or maybe not.  Wait a bit until Phase 1-Phase 2 transition over?

       
        5. Around the room
        Rebecca - nothing today
        Bruce - see above
        Mark - not here for two weeks  (alternating weeks for LTER and DataONE)
        Dave - no

  


Tickler (things to revisit periodically)

Purpose of MN Description Document (past and 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 first   step.  Possibly change the workflow? Is a pdf the best way 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?
                

Revisit the default "only results with data"   checkbox to unchecked; plan is to move the   checkbox from search page   to results page but 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