[ESIP-AQ] Fw: GEO AQ Community of Practice
McCabe.David at epamail.epa.gov
McCabe.David at epamail.epa.gov
Mon Aug 24 10:20:33 EDT 2009
Dear Shobha et al. -
You're certainly correct that it is hard to get much to happen without
funding.
The thing is, there is interest from funders in the work of community
building and infrastructure development. In Santa Barbara, at the ESIP
meeting, we talked about a draft solicitation that EPA is considering
issuing. You can see the draft here:
http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/e/ea/Cyberinfrastructure_for_AQ_Management.pdf
NASA is also interested in funding this work. In fact, they have helped
push this discussion as much as anyone. They would like to see the
Community of Practice define its goals and plans. Hopefully, this is a
step to accessing funding.
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: Shobha Kondragunta <Shobha.Kondragunta at noaa.gov>
To: David McCabe/DC/USEPA/US at EPA
Cc: "Hilsenrath, Ernest (HQ-DF000)" <ernest.hilsenrath at nasa.gov>, esip-aqcluster at rtpnet.org
Date: 08/18/2009 06:13 AM
Subject: Re: [ESIP-AQ] Fw: GEO AQ Community of Practice
David,
It is hard to motivate people/organizations (everyone is over committed)
without any dedicated funding for these activities.
Shobha
McCabe.David at epamail.epa.gov said the following on 8/17/2009 4:04 PM:
> Ernie and ESIP -
>
> The air quality community is certainly a broad, large collection of
> people and organizations. This is a challenge, certainly, for this
and
> other groups involved in GEOSS.
>
> Furthermore, there are a large number of active communities already,
> organizing many facets or subdisciplines.
>
> So, how to proceed?
>
>>From the recent discussions I've been in, I see two themes emerging,
> which might be restating a similar idea:
>
> 1. Conceive of the GEO AQ Community of Practice a light
confederation.
> The CoP should focus on linking existing organizations - existing
> Communities of Practice, if you will.
>
> 2. Focus on the AQ priorities that GEO and members have listed in the
> GEO work plan. These include:
> GEOSS Common Infrastructure / AIP2 Community Infrastructure
> AQ Observations, Forecasting, & Public Info
> Global Monitoring of Atmospheric Hg
> Global Monitoring of POPs
> Aerosol Impacts on Health & Environment
> Atmospheric Model Evaluation Network
>
> I think of themes 1 and 2 as similar because most of the Tasks above
> have communities, more or less organized, working to build a data
system
> or systems to provide decision support in their areas.
>
>>From my point of view, the GEO Community of Practice exists to a) help
> these groups with their core missions and b) help connect them to the
> broader GEOSS effort and the GCI. We believe that there is room to
help
> with the core missions because most of these tasks are only loosely
> coordinated with little communication amongst similar efforts. An
> important example is the lack of coordination between US-based efforts
> and European efforts. As for the GCI, this is only developing now.
> For the purposes of air quality, ESIP-AQ has led the effort to make
the
> GCI work and be useful. If the GCI is useful (and from AIP2, it seems
> like it could be), it makes sense to disseminate that knowledge and
> bring in new blood through a recognized AQ Community of Practice.
>
> The above summary also describes our thinking about the AQ meeting at
> the GEO Plenary in November. The goals of the Plenary meeting
include:
> Spread the word about the AQ Community Infrastructure / AIP2
> output
> Let people know about relevant CEOS ACC work
> Discuss projects underway directly relevant to GEO AQ Tasks. In
> some cases, discuss coordination amongst projects.
> Ideally, discuss priorities, community-wide. For example, what
> needs to change in the next version of the work plan?
>
> So, I propose that we proceed by focusing on the Tasks identified in
the
> Work Plan. The folks identified in the task sheets (see
> http://www.earthobservations.org/geoss_ts.shtml ) are certainly a
subset
> of those we should notify and invite to participate in this group.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> 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: "Hilsenrath, Ernest (HQ-DF000)"
<ernest.hilsenrath at nasa.gov>
>
> To: David McCabe/DC/USEPA/US at EPA,
"esip-aqcluster at rtpnet.org" <esip-aqcluster at rtpnet.org>
>
> Cc: "Lindsay, Francis (GSFC-5860)"
<francis.lindsay-1 at nasa.gov>
>
> Date: 08/14/2009 12:56 AM
>
> Subject: RE: [ESIP-AQ] Fw: GEO AQ Community of Practice
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ESIP-AQcluster mailing list
> ESIP-AQcluster at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-aqcluster
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shobha Kondragunta, Ph.D
NOAA/NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and Research
5200 Auth Road, Camp Springs, MD 21029
Tel.: 301-763-8136 X 151 Fax: 301-763-8018
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/star/AQ_index.php
------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the ESIP-AQcluster
mailing list