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:
22 August 2014
                                                         
Attending:  Laura, Rebecca, Bruce, Robert

Regrets: Amber, Mark, Dave


Agenda: 

        1. High profile issues (or current items of interest
        
        
          1.  The draft letter to become a (level 3) SP has been circulated to relevant people within DataONE 
          2.  The collaboration was discussed at the Leadership team teleconference – level 3 will be a starting point
          3.  The letter is currently being reviewed by the DataONE leadership  team
          Current status: the letter went to LT a couple weeks ago, Rebecca will send on to Bill cy Amber/Dave) There is an appendix -  is this information required as part of the SP agreement?  
          What's the next step after we become an XSEDE SP?  We live as an XSEDE SP for a while, then we look at the possibility of an XSEDE MN?  (nothing beyond us becoming a SP) before the AHM)
          
 
        epad for the meeting: http://epad.dataone.org/2014-08-22-Dublin-Core-Discussion
        
        (Previous discussions)
                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 
        1.5   Current MNs
                 Dryad listObjects issue, see https://redmine.dataone.org/issues/6010 
                     Ryan says they haven't been able to address this issue last 2 weeks
                   
                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 new
            Bruce: nope
            Robert: nope
            Laura: nope

  


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