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:
12 September 2014
                                                        
Attending: Laura, Skye, Rachel, Mark, Rebecca, Amber, Jing, Dave, Matt, Robert

Regrets: Bruce, Chris

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
        
        1.5   Current MNs
                     Ryan says they haven't been able to address this issue last 2 weeks <--Laura to ping Ryan Monday
             
                    example from MN: 
                        https://knb.ecoinformatics.org/knb/d1/mn/object/doi:10.5063/AA/knb.277.1
                    example from CN:
                        https://cn.dataone.org/cn/v1/object/doi:10.5063/AA/knb.277.1
                    Ben can prob help with this as he wrote quite a bit of the encoding stuff for metacat
                 See splunk for details: https://splunk-search-orc-1.dataone.org:8000

        2. High profile issues (or current items of interest)
            CCI 1.4.0 complete in production this morning (9/12/14)  
             https://redmine.dataone.org/projects/d1/wiki/Cn_1_4_0_release

        5. Around the room
        Amber: nothing today
        Dave: 
        Jing: nope
        Mark: experiencing network probs all week, all fixed now (we hope)
        Matt: notes added to PPBio node status above
        Rachel: from usability perspective
        Rebecca: nothing today
        Robert: nope
        Skye: nothing


        Old action items
          
              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.
            Dave has some questions to be resolved; to get with Bruce hopefully next week.
            
             
        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)

DUG discussion re: increased MN involvement with DataONE - distribution list to Rebecca 8/1/14  - when is a good time to get this out to the field?   Action: document still needs to be cleaned, but not clear which  edits are to be accepted.  Bruce to work with Laura to get a finalized version of this document ready for Bill to send out. Target sending this out after PEP is completed. Defer action on this until end of  August and revisit  this in terms of available cycles. Put this as an action at LT for AHM if it hasn't been dealt with before then.  

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.