[ESIP-AQ] Fw: GEO AQ Community of Practice
Hilsenrath, Ernest (HQ-DF000)
ernest.hilsenrath at nasa.gov
Fri Aug 14 00:56:44 EDT 2009
Dear ESIP Colleagues,
In order to form and proceed on an AQ CoP, it needs to be defined. To include a succinct mission statement and set of objectives on how the mission will be accomplished.
It would be also useful to decide and document what the CoP scope is. As mentioned in emails below, there are various perspectives of AQ. To me, a "community" means all expertise in AQ e.g.:
Data providers - ground and satellite and their QC
Algorithm developers - ground and satellite
Modelers/analysts - developers, inverse, assessments
Forecasters - long and short range, regional and local
Climatologists (for trends)
Info Tech
Outreach
Recognizing that some experts will have overlapping capabilities, a diverse Community will still provide motivation and goals, multiple perspectives, diverse membership and leadership, further edification for all, and a continuing challenge.
I would also argue that communicating, learning, and instructing your peers should indeed be on 'company time.'
It remains for this group to decide how far it will reach.
Sorry for my late response - Ernest
-----Original Message-----
From: esip-aqcluster-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:esip-aqcluster-bounces at rtpnet.org] On Behalf Of McCabe.David at epamail.epa.gov
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:20 PM
To: esip-aqcluster at rtpnet.org
Subject: [ESIP-AQ] Fw: GEO AQ Community of Practice
Hi All,
A note from GEO about how we go about 'becoming' a CoP. Clearly, it is
up to us - and whoever else we can involve - how to proceed!
- David
David McCabe, PhD
AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow
US EPA, Office of Research and Development (8104R)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460
202 564 0016
----- Forwarded by David McCabe/DC/USEPA/US on 08/07/2009 01:16 PM -----
From: "Masami Onoda" <MOnoda at geosec.org>
To: <rhusar at me.wustl.edu>, "Stefan Falke" <stefan at wustl.edu>
Cc: <emr1 at cec.wustl.edu>, <carol.meyer at earthsciencefoundation.org>, Gary Foley/RTP/USEPA/US at EPA, Terry
Keating/DC/USEPA/US at EPA, David McCabe/DC/USEPA/US at EPA, <Yasjka.Meijer at esa.int>, "Fernando Ramos"
<FRamos at geosec.org>, "Rob Koopman" <RKoopman at geosec.org>, <ernest.hilsenrath at nasa.gov>,
<francis.lindsay-1 at nasa.gov>, "Kathleen S. Fontaine" <Kathleen.s.fontaine at nasa.gov>, <lfriedl at nasa.gov>
Date: 08/07/2009 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: GEO AQ Community of Practice
Dear David and all,
First my apologies for taking so long to respond to you; it took me
certain time to catch up with the situation and how to respond to your
questions.
Meanwhile you seem to have gotten on the right track concerning the
initial question by David: 'To make this group an official GEO Community
of
Practice, what does GEO need us to do?'
In sum, there is no established formal practice on 'how to become a GEO
Community of Practice'. Some CoPs, as Kathy pointed out, wrote to UIC.
and some like the recently established Carbon Community of Practice
directly wrote to the GEO Secretariat. You may or may not have a ToR.
You need a Point of Contact and this will be posted on the GEO Website.
http://www.earthobservations.org/cop.shtml
There are a number of ways to announce the establishment of a GEO CoP:
you could report at the GEO Plenary, the Committee meetings, on the GEO
Newsletter. A particularly effective way is to hold a kick-off workshop
in conjunction with a major GEO meeting. For instance the Carbon
Community of Practice will hold its first workshop on the occasion of
the GEO-VI Plenary in November.
Depending on how quickly you want to proceed, you could have UIC discuss
this in Melbourne in September and then have UIC recommend/announce in
November, at a suitable occasion during the GEO Plenary. If so, would a
representative of the AQ CoP be able to attend the Melbourne Committee
meetings from 14-18 September to give a status report and discuss with
the Committees?
I suggest the UIC take a consistent approach for the Carbon and AQ CoP
if they are to be announced at the same Plenary - this could be
discussed in Melbourne. I copy Fernando Ramos who is going to Melbourne
to support UIC.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Masami
---------------------------------------------
Masami Onoda
GEO Secretariat
Rm 5C46, 7 bis, avenue de la Paix
Case postale 2300
CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 (0) 22 730 84 43, Fax: +41 (0) 22 730 85 20
www.earthobservations.org
---------------------------------------------
>>> Rudolf Husar <rhusar at me.wustl.edu> 7/20/2009 9:19 PM >>>
Hello All,
I fully agree that this was a necessary and positive discussion on the
various aspects of the AQ CoP. It is clear that there are multiple
legitimate perspectives on the GEO AQ CoP and only this kind of
discussion can properly expose them. Below is my own perspective, i.e.
that of an AQ analyst-practitioner who is interested in:
- sharing my experience, tools, and methods applicable to AQ analysis
- learning from my peers and using their shared tools and methods
- and jointly contributing to the realization of the revolutionary
vision: By 2015 (or so) creating a GEOSS.
A GEO AQ CoP would serve the purpose of linking up with my like-minded
peers globally. While I am, and continue to be, a member of several such
AQ analyst 'clubs', I am not aware of one that is gathered around and
shares the vision of GEOSS. So, this is why I would like to promote and
to participate in the GEO AQ CoP. I am also confident that there are
many other practitioners like me. But who are they? Where are they? What
are their real interests, needs and attitudes, particularly of the newer
generations. (Not the 70s and 80s players like me :)). We also know,
that GEO is seeking the the collective wisdom of these practitioners,
and needs to know how to reach them.
I realize that I can pursue and devote time to these lofty ideas because
of my privileged situation as a senior member of academia and also
having the support of multiple US agencies. Colleagues in industry or
younger academics can not necessarily afford these luxuries. The
realities faced by many of my peers include overcommitment, diminishing
resources and a world that is getting increasingly complicated and
'noisy'.
The concerns raised by Frank Lindsay of NASA, about not further diluting
the energies of active practitioners is right on. Similarly, Yasjka
Meijer at ESA points out that in Europe many professionals have
difficulty justifying to their employers spending 'company time' for
collaborative and other processional group activities.
So, a GEO AQ CoP needs to offer a lot and demand little from its
participants. We may not have a master plan, and a solution on hand but
it is self-evident to me that a viable GEO AQ CoP should offer
value/benefits that is many fold of the time/energy invested. Parts of
the magic formula for this are embedded in the generalized principles of
GEOSS:
- Rely on the voluntary sharing of existing wisdom, tools and methods of
its members
- The CoP should start with very modest, participant-driven activities
- Share the belief that 'all of us are smarter than any one of us'.
Finally, my standard but sensitive question: Would anyone object if we
post this discussion on the open wiki, so that others can participate is
this valuable conversation and also to record the process by which the
GEO AQ CoP is 'created' and how it evolves. I am suggesting to open the
CoP wiki so that, like Kathy suggested, we can begin with a a core group
of interested GEO AQ CoP participants from the U.S., Europe and
elsewhere. This bottom-up, organic, multi-centric approach to forming a
CoP has worked well in the case of the ESIP AQ Workgroup.
Best to all,
Rudy
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Stefan Falke <stefan at wustl.edu> wrote:
I agree. This email exchange has clarified the unresolved questions
from last week's discussion.
-Stefan
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM, <McCabe.David at epamail.epa.gov> wrote:
Kathy, Frank, et al -
I would say that Kathy got it right. While we discussed this at the
ESIP meeting, we are not proposing that the ESIP AQ workgroup become
or
lead the GEO Community of Practice. Instead, a number of individuals
are seeking to activate the AQ CoP.
So, we will formally ask the UIC for recommendation to the
Secretariat.
Have a good weekend!
David
David McCabe, PhD
AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow
US EPA, Office of Research and Development (8104R)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460
202 564 0016
From: "Kathleen S. Fontaine" <Kathleen.s.fontaine at nasa.gov>
To: <francis.lindsay-1 at nasa.gov>, David McCabe/DC/USEPA/US at EPA, <
RKoopman at geosec.org>, <MOnoda at geosec.org>,
<ernest.hilsenrath at nasa.gov>
Cc: <carol.meyer at earthsciencefoundation.org>, <emr1 at cec.wustl.edu>,
Gary Foley/RTP/USEPA/US at EPA, <GRum at geosec.org>,
<lfriedl at nasa.gov>, <rhusar at me.wustl.edu>, <stefan at wustl.edu>, Terry
Keating/DC/USEPA/US at EPA,
<Yasjka.Meijer at esa.int>
Date: 07/17/2009 03:33 PM
Subject: Re: GEO AQ Community of Practice
All valid points, and let me stress again, as Lawrence has in the
past,
that it is *not* the expectation that the ESIP AQ Cluster will
*become*
the GEO AQ CoP, thereby usurping ESIP vision and goals. This (in my
opinion) misconception of the CoP still seems to be out there.
Rather,
there is a need for an AQ CoP in GEO, some Cluster members have a
desire
to gel that need for, among other things, assmebling broader
expertise
for shared, global AQ issues, into a more oranized core towards
which
others will coalesce, and if that is the case, the next step (which
is
what David was asking about), is to write a letter to the UIC. It
should be clear that participation of any ESIP AQ Cluster member in
a
GEO CoP is voluntary.
You could use the Water Cycle CoP as a model if you wish. They
formed
for another reason, were recognized by the UIC, and have grown over
time. The ESIP Water Cluster is going to approach their lead and ask
where the skill gaps might be to focus that Cluster's participation
discussions. I simply see the AQ folks as working it from the other
direction.
Whatever is decided internally by the AQ Cluster, though, David's
statement still stands....there are members who are interested in
spinning the activity up, whether it's under the ESIP umbrella or
not.
It sounds like the AQ Cluster might still have some internal
discussions
to work through - I'm happy to provide info if you need any.
Thanks.
K
Kathy Fontaine's Blackberry Sent This
-----Original Message-----
From: Lindsay, Francis (GSFC-5860) <francis.lindsay-1 at nasa.gov>
To: Kathleen S. Fontaine; McCabe.David at epamail.epa.gov
<McCabe.David at epamail.epa.gov>; Rob Koopman <RKoopman at geosec.org>;
Masami Onoda <MOnoda at geosec.org>; Hilsenrath, Ernest (HQ-DF000)
<ernest.hilsenrath at nasa.gov>
CC: carol.meyer-earthsciencefou.org
<carol.meyer at earthsciencefoundation.org>; Erin Robinson
<emr1 at cec.wustl.edu>; Foley.Gary at epamail.epa.gov
<Foley.Gary at epamail.epa.gov>; Giovanni Rum <GRum at geosec.org>;
Friedl,
Lawrence A. (HQ-DK000) <lfriedl at nasa.gov>; Rudolf Husar
<rhusar at me.wustl.edu>; Stefan Falke <stefan at wustl.edu>;
Keating.Terry at epamail.epa.gov <Keating.Terry at epamail.epa.gov>;
Yasjka.Meijer at esa.int <Yasjka.Meijer at esa.int>
Sent: Fri Jul 17 15:00:42 2009
Subject: Re: GEO AQ Community of Practice
Hi, I'm not opposed to the idea but we do need to establish current
tasks, funding (time) associated with these, and the meeting of
needed
US agency goals and those of the ESIP. I'm wary of diluting the
group's
efforts given we are still trying to establish some actual
capabilities
for AQ & AC.
best,
frank
--
Dr. Francis E. Lindsay
NASA
Code 423/586
Goddard Space Flight Center
Building 32 - E230B
Greenbelt, MD 20771
301.614.5331 (office)
francis.lindsay-1 at nasa.gov
On 7/17/09 2:44 PM, "Fontaine, Kathleen S. (GSFC-610.2)"
<kathleen.s.fontaine at nasa.gov> wrote:
Hi David and all -
I'll let Gary and Lawrence amplify (and whoever else wants to),
but my understanding is that the CoP issue (how to get new ones
together) is actually a UIC issue, where the UIC makes
recommendations
to the GEO Sec. Part of the reason that Lawrence and I were at the
AQ
session at ESIP was to help with the next step of that process,
should
the ESIP AQ Cluster agree. In the past, the entity wishing to form
the
core of a new CoP has formally written to the UIC Co-Chairs and the
UIC
has taken that up the line. As we have an activity in the UIC
Activity
Plan to review and better establish that process, I suggest we start
with that and see how it works.
Any thoughts from the group?
Thanks
Kathy
On 7/16/09 5:53 PM, "McCabe.David at epamail.epa.gov"
<McCabe.David at epamail.epa.gov> wrote:
Dear Rob and Masami,
First, thank you to Rob for virtually attending the ESIP
Air Quality
Workgroup's meeting last week. We are proud of the work
that ESIP has
achieved and think that ESIP and GEO can benefit from
connections
between these groups. It was good to have Rob online,
despite the fact
that the meeting was occurring in a very inconvenient
time zone for
those in Europe. Rob, we will work to get useful
reports and such on
the wiki. (Presentations are already on line).
As we have discussed before, a number of us are
interested in formally
activating an Air Quality Community of Practice. As
discussed in Stresa
at the ISRSE meeting, several US participants are
interested in this,
and we have been reaching out to colleagues in Europe
and elsewhere
about participating. We have looked into some basic
logistic (eg
available web addresses, etc.).
To make this group an official GEO Community of
Practice, what does GEO
need us to do? Let me know if it would be helpful to
receive word from
UIC or US representatives.
Best, David
David McCabe, PhD
AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow
US EPA, Office of Research and Development (8104R)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460
202 564 0016
From: "Rob Koopman" <RKoopman at geosec.org>
To: <rhusar at me.wustl.edu>, "Kathleen S.
Fontaine" <Kathleen.S.Fontaine at nasa.gov>
Cc: "Erin Robinson" <emr1 at cec.wustl.edu>,
"Carol B. Meyer" <carol.meyer at earthsciencefoundation.org>, Terry
Keating/DC/USEPA/US at EPA, Gary
Foley/RTP/USEPA/US at EPA, David McCabe/DC/USEPA/US at EPA,
<Yasjka.Meijer at esa.int>,
"Giovanni Rum" <GRum at geosec.org>, "Masami
Onoda" <MOnoda at geosec.org>, "Francis (GSFC-5860) Lindsay"
<francis.lindsay-1 at nasa.gov>, "Kathy
Fontaine" <kathy.fontaine at nasa.gov>, "Lawrence Friedl"
<lfriedl at nasa.gov>,
"Stefan Falke" <stefan at wustl.edu>
Date: 06/25/2009 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: GEO AQ Community of Practice
Dear all,
GEO secretariat support to the Health SBA has been
handed over from
Giovanni Rum (now immersed in Forest Carbon) to Masami
Onoda.
Air Quality will continue to be managed under the Health
SBA.
Masami is therefore your point of contact.
Nevertheless it is accepted that I will provide support
to her work on
the Air Quality task, so please keep me in copy.
Cheers,
Rob
Robert Koopman +41 22 730 8799
GEO Secretariat
PO Box 2300
1211 Geneva 2
Switzerland
---------
Kathy Fontaine
GOES-R GS GEOSS Liaison
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Code 417
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Office: +1-301-286-8161
Cell: +1-301-408-8937
Fax: +1-301-286-1947
kathy.fontaine at nasa.gov
kathy.fontaine at noaa.gov
--
Rudolf B. Husar, Professor and Director
Center for Air Pollution Impact and Trend Analysis (CAPITA),
Washington University,
1 Brookings Drive, Box 1124
St. Louis, MO 63130
314 935 6099
_______________________________________________
ESIP-AQcluster mailing list
ESIP-AQcluster at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-aqcluster
More information about the ESIP-AQcluster
mailing list