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
 
GTM info:
 
5 September 2014
                                                        
Attending: Bruce (phone and epad),  Laura, Skye, Chris, Mark, Robert, Ben, Rebecca (late but no charge this time) :) Amber (late)
 
Regrets: Dave, 
 
 
Agenda:  We've restructured the agenda to enable developers to come and know  where things stand in their and others' MNs before moving on to more  detailed discussions.
 
        1. Status of upcoming MNs
        
 
 
 
        2. 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?  
            In review with Dave.
             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.
        
 
 
 
        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
             
        5. Around the room
        Ben - in Brazil last week, biodiversity MN, very early stages. SiBBr (http://www.sibbr.gov.br/)
            on a related note, UTK/USGS and DataONE also working with ICMBio (http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/), Pedro Correa (visiting Knoxville/OR for a year)
        Chris - EDAC (EPSCoR Tier 4 MN) (Hays) needs to sort our their DNS issue, then Chris can generate certs
        Mark - see above
        Rebecca - question on item from LT meeting
        
 
        Robert - nope
        Skye - looking at moving CCI 1.4.0 to production next week
 
 
 
        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.
 
Laura to ask Rob about order of testing (when and where) - document this, also what does "good to go" mean?
             
        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?
 
       
 
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.