Survey of the Second SEEDS Public Workshop

Note: where necessary for readability, grammar and spelling have been
fixed. Otherwise, all comments are verbatim.

# About the content

1.  What was the most useful element of this workshop to you? Why?

    -   Reagan Moore's presentation -- coordinated overview of work in
        digital library, grid, and persistent archive communities

    -   Structure/format pretty good; provided nice running status of
        deliberations

    -   The talk before the breakouts about breakouts; all parts will be
        part of the whole and knowing what is up with each is important;
        Bruce Caron had a great presentation and discussion -- would
        have liked it earlier

    -   The homework the SEEDS team was forced to do for this
        'deadline'; viewing and commenting on the current state of SEEDS
        plans

    -   Interacting with all participants. It helps vet ideas and
        establish common ground. Personal relationships also help
        facilitate future interactions.

    -   Actually -- the whole thing was a good balance of progress
        reporting, new info (e.g., the data grid) and breakout
        discussions

    -   Bringing Reagan Moore will help us bridge to NSDL activities

    -   The breakout sessions were the most useful element to me. I am a
        new member to this community of professionals, and the breakouts
        help me to see the expertise and the issues that exist here as
        well.

    -   Introduction to NASA processes and methods to involve community
        -- get sense of NASA/Goddard science/direction

    -   Peer networking. Access to ides and concerns of other
        organizations and disciplines. Hearing about future plans.

    -   Discussions with the different perspectives

    -   The life cycle discussion was useful because I had not heard of
        the plans for transition of data from EOSDIS to NOAA.

    -   Learning what SEEDS is about, awareness of issues I had not
        thought about, and the ability to express my thoughts on issues.

    -   The plenary/debrief sessions. These sessions are invaluable for
        obtaining insight/understanding of issues being raised in fora
        one individual is unable to participate \[in\] due to the
        interest in another session.

    -   Since this is the first workshop attended, to me it was very
        useful in understanding what SEEDS is all about. I will not say
        that I am going with a clear picture of SEEDS, however this is a
        start.

    -   This was a very balanced workshop with a good mix of
        presentations and working sessions. Also a good mix of SEEDS and
        "community" presenters. Better structured and more interesting
        than first workshop.

    -   Capability/technology -- this session pointed out where the weak
        points of the systems are and what improvements are needed.

    -   Finally got a good understanding of SEEDS and its activities.

    -   Continuing the dialog on data stewardship, governance and
        standards. These are critical to the success of NASA data
        management in the future.

    -   Community involvement because it needed to be addressed

    -   Standards -- on study team for standards

    -   Sharing ideas; extracting lists of 'new ideas' for data system
        consideration; discussion on life cycle spurred ideas on
        permanent archive; combination of group and breakout sessions

    -   There were some excellent ideas and discussions from the
        capability/technology breakout session

    -   Discussion of software reuse for mission critical systems;
        useful presentation on Federation activities

    -   Breakouts -- especially standards breakout; opportunities for
        interactions with colleagues -- breaks, lunches together,
        breakfasts; extensive intros that set the stage for workshops;
        Townshend and Caron's talks

    -   Breakouts -- enabled discussion and debate; community
        involvement

    -   Different points of view represented; feedback on standards
        study

    -   Format pretty successful (i.e., plenary/overviews, working
        session, report out); invited speakers/perspectives added a lot

    -   Standards -- good presentation on lessons learned by other
        organizations

    -   Reuse -- very close to current work and also has possibilities
        to save ESE time and costs

    -   The MODAPS pitch on reuse and the reuse session. It was the most
        interesting and let me think about future missions.

2.  What was the least useful element of this workshop to you? Why?

    -   Concurrent sessions -- overlapping discussions

    -   None. I found the information all helpful to the "big picture"

    -   Some of the freewheeling 'discussion'; some of the emphasis on
        technology solutions

    -   Content was fine. Logistics: don't like to have to travel on
        Sunday. I get little enough time with my family.

    -   Breakouts need to also break out into discussions of 6 -- 8
        people; the breakouts were too big.

    -   Focus on data access rather than data use and value; simple
        provider/user segmentation rather than production chain or loop
        where each entity is both.

    -   At this point, I really can't say. I have not had the exposure
        to the community and its politics to really make a truly
        educated opinion.

    -   Community discussion -- I think it needed to be said and was
        quite good -- but the ESE has an established community.

    -   Mulling through old issues that have no ownership or plan of
        attack. It creates frustration in the group.

    -   The discussion of NASA internal policies, contracting, etc.

    -   All were useful, but it wasn't clear that our breakout groups
        added value to what had been done previously.

    -   I found the workshop as a whole to be very useful to me.

    -   Integration: Sometime soon will need to integrate formulation
        teams. Okay to leave separate, but need to integrate discussions
        of 2 or more teams that rely on discussion of other teams --
        melt the bricks. Why? To assure sound foundations are being
        formed.

    -   I believe every element is useful. However a brief summary of
        SEEDS for a 10-15 minute period would have set the tone better
        for the workshop. I know that people always can read thru web
        pages, nevertheless this is a suggestion.

    -   High cost of group dinner discouraged many from attending. This
        was peripheral to the business of the workshop. But it's a
        failure as a "community building exercise" if you price most
        people out.

    -   Standards. There is a need for standards but I think that SEEDS
        needs to get more input from users and their problems with
        obtaining data.

    -   Some breakout sessions were not well focused -- did not deal
        with concrete things (too abstract and theoretical)

    -   Community engagement. We need to recognize the fact that the
        scientific community does not, nor should they, care about the
        design and operation of the data systems. They care about
        quality data and services. You cannot engage them in systems
        discussions or standards issues. The tools and services should
        mask the standards.

    -   The lengthy plenary briefings. Perhaps they should be left for
        the intro of each breakout.

    -   Community engagement -- needed more up front analysis of what is
        the relevant community for each SEEDS activity (SEEDS reuse
        community is different from SEEDS user activities, etc.)

    -   Interaction with the end-user community as it only included John
        Townshend.

    -   Sorry, nothing comes to mind

    -   Data grid technology to manage data

    -   Not enough depth -- need more end user representation

    -   Anything having to do with 'creating community involvement' --
        methodologies for getting deep community involvement. Don't know
        scope of SEEDS, therefore don't know who their customer is. Lots
        of talk, but just focusing on ESE responses

    -   Standards, because typically they are set or specified for me

3.  What topics do you wish we had covered, and who might talk about
    them?

    -   Tested processes -- someone from OGC, IETF, etc.

    -   NSDI/GSDI development -- someone from FGCD

    -   Future remote sensing missions over 5 -- 15 years -- NASA, NOAA,
        commercial

    -   HQ discussion on how the SEEDS process will work. Give examples.
        What near-term missions will be affected by SEEDS? Explain how
        NPP will be affected by SEEDS.

    -   Don't know what I don't know

    -   An overall view of the data 'policy' at NASA -- SEEDS is only
        trying to facilitate interfaces, standards, etc -- since
        [data]{.underline} flows through those interfaces, understanding
        NASA Y's vision for overall data productions, distribution,
        etc., is essential.

    -   I'd like to learn more about HQ view, funding, and outreach.

    -   Evolving corporate culture, communication, community within NASA
        ESE...some experts on corporate culture might be found.

    -   BENEFITS! Can't separate LOS or cost from discussion of value
        (with metrics that reflect value). Can't do strategy until goals
        are linked to their expected value to each population.

    -   I think a topic that was evident from the comments presented
        over these last few days would be defining scope in relation to
        SEEDS.

    -   Current processes in use by successful programs/teams -- lessons
        learned

    -   Legacy processes worth keeping

    -   Maybe another success story (like MODIS fire) that has benefited
        from the SEEDS spirit and intent.

    -   Lessons learned -- issues and resolution tactics of a real world
        project (EO-1, SRTM on the land science side)

    -   The nature of future missions and projects is very important,
        but not known to everyone.

    -   Unfortunately, I had to leave early and so missed the metrics
        session, which I would have been very interested in.

    -   The benefits SEEDS will bring to the Earth Science community.

    -   Knowledge-based systems -- extraction of knowledge from
        data/info, organization of knowledge for query/results;
        presentation of knowledge -- some [corporate]{.underline} expert

    -   We are developing SEEDS as an interface and data links to be
        used by the [user community]{.underline}. An independent
        validation and verification as to its performance should be, in
        my view, a topic to be covered. Maybe we can ask Fairmont/NASA
        facility to participate.

    -   How to manage the development of SEEDS in distributed
        environment.

    -   More on where the major problems or bottlenecks are in the
        present system.

    -   The focus needs to move toward implementation. We cannot plan
        and formulate forever. How are we going to design the overall
        infrastructure? How will it be funded in the long term? What
        will be the governance structures?

    -   The future interaction between the SEEDS office, ESE, and the
        implementing programs. People who will be doing the actual work
        -- Steve, Mike Luther or his rep, the NPP or other mission
        person

    -   What other space agencies are practicing in all of these topics

    -   How is SEEDS going to expedite needed studies that impact
        near-term missions?

    -   Coverage was adequate

    -   End-user involvement; applications; COTS providers

    -   A review of the 1^st^ 5 years of EOSDIS and what was done at
        that time about many of these same issues. Don't just identify
        what went wrong, but also what was done well and what went
        right.

    -   Perhaps we could get various hardware and software vendors to
        talk about their plans for the next several years

    -   Now that governance is addressed.....none

4.  What topics do you wish we had left out and why?

    -   None

    -   I do not know -- it all seems necessary.

    -   I think all the topics discussed are topics that were needed
        considering where SEEDS is in its conception/formulation.

    -   The technology transfer segment wasn't as useful. It wasn't
        specific. It was good for outreach to the general public. It
        just didn't offer anything substantial to the group.

    -   All good.

    -   None

    -   No opinion now, but we may want to downplay community
        involvement in near future.

    -   None

    -   Testing. Testing points out the need for strong ICD's, OA's.

    -   None

    -   None

    -   MODAPS reuse -- was not presented in a manner that described
        usefulness to other projects

    -   Metrics -- doesn't add much info at this point

    -   Community involvement -- we need something innovative and
        different for engaging the science community, but the key SEEDS
        community [is]{.underline} the data provider/data system
        developer community. They in turn have end users of data as
        [their]{.underline} user community. SEEDS needs outreach to this
        secondary community.

    -   Bruce Caron's talk on communities. Need more than just an
        academic description and to focus on concrete strategies (or
        lessons learned) to accomplish this vision. John Townshend talk
        on definitions was trivial and the only useful part was the
        results of the Google search on the CDC.

    -   The first implementation talks -- they were interesting, but
        about implementation and not requirements. Update -- the
        Federation talk was less interesting and/or relevant. Now that
        the Federation has the Foundation, I'm not sure it can be given
        special treatment by NASA.

5.  What topics should we add to the next workshop and who are the
    experts?

    -   Security architecture -- not sure who

    -   Direct broadcast -- current experience, future trends

    -   Data center/data management -- "life cycle" is not just
        long-term archiving!

    -   More on OAIS, benchmark study

    -   Data integration -- cross-disciplinary data use

    -   Intellectual property issues -- Paul Uhler, (NAS)

    -   See #3

    -   IBM ESIP marketplace tools -- Chung-Sheng Li

    -   NSDL and links outside NASA -- Dave Fulker

    -   The scope of SEEDS should be addressed, at the very least for
        those of us who are new to SEEDS, and as a refresher for some
        fellows here who could use a reminder.

    -   Knowledge management/sharing -- community knowledge system

    -   Have some users come tell some ESE success stories

    -   NASA data buy projects (EarthSAT, LDCM); how do these commercial
        activities fit into SEEDS? Commercial launch segments may take a
        bigger chunk of new missions.

    -   It is very important to examine and join forces with the grid
        activities.

    -   Issues as seen from the science community as opposed to issues
        of data management.

    -   Knowledge-based management -- some rep from a corporate
        organization who is an expert in knowledge-based systems.

    -   IV&V area people from Fairmont/WVA NASA

    -   The use of wireless technology and data mining would be useful.

    -   Would be nice to identify target audience/user of SEEDS data --
        research scientists (instrument and multidiscipline), modelers,
        applications, other agencies. Perhaps we could hear from some of
        them....

    -   It would seem that SEEDS main function is to tie together the
        various systems. It would be good to see what can be improved or
        made better in the interfaces and in the web access area.

    -   Implementation -- implementing agencies, i.e., NASA, NOAA, USGS,
        others -- NSF?

    -   Interaction between SEEDS office, HQ, and programs; until we
        know that, we don't know if this is wasted effort or not. I
        don't know who the experts are.

    -   Federation and SEEDS: How are they going to get along?

    -   Ease of use of ES data -- insights from knowledge discovery/NSF,
        DLESE; information grid -- Ames; ES modeling framework (climatic
        focus) -- NCAR is lead; intellectual property rights; software
        release process, tech transfer "hoops" -- is there anyone who
        understands and can make \[these last three\] interesting?; open
        source or Linux speaker -- describe process

    -   More industry/\[can't read\] representation -- their perspective
        on standards/trends

    -   More on DAAC/SIPS perspective

    -   Something on grids, esp. data grids. Not just a sales job, but
        something that gets into the pros and cons. A series of user
        perspectives, especially from users who have lived through the
        1^st^ 15 years. Alternative collection management approaches,
        other than SRB.

    -   User presentations from oceanography, geology, hydrology, etc.,
        as to their future needs

    -   Having a "community engagement" workshop may be useful --
        identify specific communities broken down by each SEEDS
        activity; discuss how to get representative participation for
        each activity by each community

6.  Please identify 2 people who are not here this time who should be
    next time, and how we can reach them?

    -   More NOAA -- LTA involvement

    -   Flight project/instrument team representatives to gather input
        and requirements from this side of the user community

    -   Dr. Mike King/MODIS Scientist GSFC/NASA

    -   Dr. Helen Wood/NOAA NESDIS

    -   Dr. Dan Tarpley/NOAA NESDIS ORA

    -   Rep from NCSA (HDF expert), although here this session, should
        be invited to speak about the future of HDF (HDF EOS) -- long
        term directions and support for this technology

    -   NASA program manager

    -   Representatives from the science community -- offer travel money
        to support them and make them aware of the importance of their
        attendance and participation in the group

    -   Ron Birk (or other) to get buy-in -- HQ -- need to have HQ
        support in addition to Martha Maiden

    -   PMs from NASA projects to get buy-in

    -   Users and new blood from outside the same old bunch that have
        been together for 10+ years- for ideas

    -   Users -- pay them to come -- via PMO

    -   I am here representing The Numerical Terradynamic Simulation
        Group, we are part of the science community, I think more
        members of the Earth Science community should be here.

    -   Chung Sheng Li at IBM Watson

    -   Dave Fulker at UCAR

    -   Dave Fulker -- UCAR NSDL PI

    -   Dave Mogk -- DLESE, Montana State University

    -   Dr. David Glover

    -   We need more people to come from ASF, one person can't be
        everywhere. Most everyone else came as a group (or at least a
        few)

    -   If users are important, we should contact all our users and
        invite them, but then there should be plenty of time for their
        input

    -   Cynthia Rosenzweig, GISS -- on [ongoing]{.underline} climate
        change

    -   Someone from new Climate Change Office (Mahoney?)

    -   Ron Birk et al, NASA Applications

    -   (good question) In general, each DAAC, ESISS, NRC, NSF, ESIPs,
        SIPS, and other organizations should be asked to send 2 users
        representatives (e.g., DAAC user working groups, members of
        ESISS, NRC)

    -   We should have users of various disciplines speak to their
        requirements for STDs, reuse, metrics, etc.; science community
        people such as Nick VanDriel and Charlie Trautwein

    -   Dr. Chris Justice at UMD

    -   Charlie Catlett of the "global grid forum'; has ES background
        but can speak very knowledgeably on grids and also can speak
        knowledgeably about processes such as IETF and GGF, both of
        which are models for the SEEDS standards processes. David Stern,
        formerly of RSI (IDL) to speak on vendor perspectives. Don
        Sawyer and/or Lou Reich to talk on their archiving work, and
        also on related topics.

    -   Instrument team representative -- talk about experience, reuse,
        etc.

    -   Joy Henegar (GSFC/NPP); Dan DeVito (GSFC/NPP/IPO)

    -   2 more science folks -- a NASA person like Jim Irons, and some
        non-NASA scientist

7.  Are you willing to actively help the SEEDS Formulation Team with
    present and future activities? If so, please give us your specialty
    and your coordinates so we can reach you!

    -   Bob Chen -- user community interactions; standards development;
        data integration; DAAC issues

    -   Victor Zlotnicki -- ocean science; DAAC scientist

    -   I'm on a study team...

    -   Bruce Caron -- issues of community development

    -   Howard Burrows -- sure

    -   Michael Singer -- contractor -- data system development

    -   Tim Smith -- long term archiving of land science data (NSLRSDA)

    -   Bob McGrath -- I would be interested in the technology infusion
        study

    -   Mary Armstrong -- I'd be very interested in areas of LOS,
        metrics, reuse

    -   Sherry Harrison -- I am involved with user services, data
        distribution and operations at the Global Hydrology Resource
        Center. I am also currently chair of the DAAC Alliance User
        Services Working Group (USWG).

    -   Vince Troisi -- maybe; engineering management

    -   Sarma Modali -- development of user community

    -   James Fischer -- IV&V, testing, performance of systems

    -   I already am

    -   Yes. My specialty is data models and file formats, esp. HDF, and
        also how these interact with high performance computing (Mike
        Folk)

    -   Mission critical data systems (Ed Masuoka)

    -   I am currently helping Matt Schwaller with the Life Cycle study

    -   Life cycle (data stewardship); less active, but participate in
        LOS and technology (Steve Kempler)

    -   Yes -- Yonsook Enloe

# Other comments?

-   I hate to suggest more/longer meetings, but study teams need to
    interact more. Lots of convergence -- e.g., Ed's talk on reuse was
    full of examples of benefits of standards (data model, HDF EOS) and
    interfaces (modular, plug-n-play design)

-   Standards and lifecycle groups have identified various resource
    requirements that should feed into cost model.

-   Need more inputs from the user community

-   If the SEEDS workshop holds in the same form as before, NASA should
    advertise the workshop in the major professional newsletter (e.g.
    EOS) to invite the participants

-   SEEDS formulation team should hold workshop in conjunction with
    major professional meetings to solicit inputs from user community

-   Wish we had approached other agencies. USDA (has a remote sensing
    group that uses satellite data), DOE (has at least one major program
    ARP), EUMETSAT and ESA, ISRO/INSAT group/NRSA group -- these people
    learned to use data from US satellites

-   It would be very helpful to have the status reports from the working
    groups before the workshop, rather than relying on a 30-minute
    summary.

-   Great venue (San Diego)

-   Good organization and coordination (good job Kortney)

-   Provide presentations on web site

-   Great accommodations/great food

-   Pick a hotel with broadband access please!!

-   I feel this was a better workshop than last time. I could more
    easily participate and I learned far more. I would like to have had
    the question sheets before I came so I could talk with those who
    didn't come but would have valuable input.

-   When people ask what SEEDS is, it would be nice if there were a
    standard answer. Everyone seems to have a different twist. \[can't
    decipher remainder of the comment\]

-   I think the lack of FT study team cross-information flow is hurting
    the FT effort.

-   Group dinner too expensive; Starting Monday morning after Father's
    Day was very family unfriendly; Good weather! Needed more beach
    time...

-   Very good workshop, especially in extracting new ideas. Has there
    been consideration for developing a distributed data system model
    that includes the ideas of various breakout sessions? This would
    validate topic ideas and help develop processes. This would also
    provide a higher look at all the areas of study working together.

-   Perhaps we could do marketing to gain user support. Advertise in
    PS&RS and other periodicals and attend user conferences.

-   Be sure and set up a web-based or e-mail based method of marking-up
    existing SEEDS documents and adding feedback from end-users.

-   Presentations frequently were really hard to read because the font
    was small and/or there was way too much text, and inevitably the
    speaker didn't provide sufficient time to read the text. How about
    advising speakers on how to do good presentations. There are some
    good sources for this. Provide an e-mail room. Wireless access would
    be nice but isn't critical. Kortney Stevens is a winner!

-   Focus on integration of study team findings in next SEEDS workshop.

-   Should have spent a lot more time on orientation and background of
    SEEDS, and especially provide this info on handouts for future
    reference (at the breakout session).

-   Interesting and necessary groundwork.

#  

# About the breakout sessions

Please rate the breakout sessions. In terms of your work and your
interests, how useful were the breakout sessions to you.

Least useful Most useful

Community Involvement 1 2 3 4 5

18 responses 3.61

Capability/Technology 1 2 3 4 5

25 responses 3.68

Standards 1 2 3 4 5

22 responses 4.30

Life Cycle 1 2 3 4 5

17 responses 4.08

Reuse 1 2 3 4 5

17 responses 3.59

Metrics 1 2 3 4 5

14 responses 3.36

Level of Service/Cost Model 1 2 3 4 5

12 responses 3.50

Comments on the breakout sessions?

-   Substantial reliance on surveys that were not conducted with basic
    controls on bias, sampling, reliability, human subjects protections.
    Qualitative vs. quantitative use; former may be justified, but
    latter is not. Difference between surveying an entire population and
    a sample of a population.

-   Too many were unfocused -- lots of unfocused discussion; material
    covered in the past; "policy"/guidelines had to be rehashed. I feel
    that few visited and read the material from the SEEDS #2 website.
    Maybe people should be pre-assigned (volunteer) to a particular
    breakout session and let them prepare for it using web material and
    other materials provided by the chair. Folks not pre-assigned are
    free to attend any session.

-   Life cycle presentations were great starts; wish we had more time to
    follow thru.; cap/tech -- could have split earlier; Bruce's talk --
    outstanding; the whole meeting much better/ in group there was the
    hostility and hard headedness. People \[rallied?\] and those that
    weren't in the core group could participate.

-   Sessions were good. Summaries were also good.

-   I would ask how useful were the breakout sessions for SEEDS?

-   Use \[can't read word\] to capture and expand concepts.

-   There seems to be some angry undercurrents here. I feel that it has
    actually undermined, to some extent, the insight and creativity of a
    couple of the breakouts that I attended. The comments and bickering
    took up valuable time. These issues should be handled in another
    forum. This would free us up to solve the issues at hand and save
    the angst fro a more appropriate forum.

-   Good forum -- the approach used -- i.e., give introduction and
    continue in breakout sessions is very good and worked well. Before I
    came here, I did not understand the agenda -- maybe you could
    explain it for SEEDS #3.

-   They were very useful. Breakout sessions are a great way to share
    ideas and learn about the needs of others involved with Earth
    science data at various levels.

-   Overall very educational and interactive! Eventually we'll need an
    "uber" breakout session that may last a bit longer but does not
    conflict with other sessions. The plenary provides some opportunity
    for joint interaction, but I believe a session joining say
    standards, reuse, and capability/technology will be needed soon.

-   They were useful as you hear from various individuals their
    opinions.

-   Breakout sessions are most useful for the formulation team to get
    inputs. In the future, workshop should reduce the number of plenary
    sessions and increase breakout sessions. Move some of plenary talks
    to breakout sessions.

-   I'm generally interested in more breakouts than I can attend. Then
    again, 3 days is about the maximum amount of time you can sustain
    interest in a workshop -- maybe that's why I was interested in all 4
    Mon/Tues breakouts, less interested in Weds breakout. A more useful
    comment: breakout timeframes were about right.

-   Most of the sessions were useful. Somehow a need to get more users
    of the data involved in SEEDS is needed. A survey using the database
    of users from EDG may be a way to inform users of SEEDS and also to
    get input on what they would find helpful in tools or we access.

-   External speakers generally useful; general format of workshop
    worked well, but some breakouts needed more time; near term stds and
    long term stds process should have been separated into own breakouts
    -- ran out of discussion time; at some point, having a 2 -- 3 day
    meeting on only one study topic, with invited targeted reps,
    representing different communities to work out topic or tire kick
    process, etc., may make sense and be useful

-   It's good to have presentation in breakouts, but important to make
    these brief enough to leave plenty of time for discussion; give
    handouts of key elements of presentations, especially flow diagrams
    that are hard to remember; moderators did an excellent job of
    keeping focused and were really well prepared -- Great!; summaries
    also well done, but make sure these are on the web.

-   Good forums for brainstorming for the SEEDS team.

-   Technology -- not enough free form; too question focused; leading to
    known answers

-   Important to provide rapid feedback on at least
    [preliminary]{.underline} results via SEEDS web site by 6/24

Your interest in SEEDS

-   Data stewardship

-   Need to know what is coming in the future

-   Community development; interaction with science user

-   Earth science data users access to data and customer service

-   Understanding and participation in development/evolution of next
    generation systems

-   Lifecycle/LTA

-   Data systems

-   The standards and technology understanding and expertise could
    really help us accomplish our goals.

-   NASA name and EOSDIS is inspiring and exciting to the general
    public. Can use this to improve science practices generally.

-   Helping promote democratic ownership within the NASA/user community
    partnership.

-   General as ASF will fit in and how ASF will be able to participate

-   DAAC Alliance vice chair; Federation ESIP-1 rep; involved in
    distributed web mapping, standards development

-   NPP SDS

-   I expect to work on NASA missions in the SEEDS era

-   Its concern with the balance between community involvement and
    mission requirements; standards evolution; archiving

-   Near-term standards

-   Reuse

-   On long-term standards process study team

-   Facilitate the evolution of data systems to support Earth science,
    specifically, preservation of data and related levels of service;
    technologies

-   Member of the life cycle study team

-   Developing low-cost data systems; new services provided

Where should we hold our next workshop?

-   East (northeast?)

-   Maryland

-   No preference

-   Not College Park

-   Somewhere the weather is warm and the fishing is good!  Seriously,
    though, possibly Boulder (start hosting meetings where we can
    directly involve community members).

-   Away from the office was good -- got good NASA attendance

-   A hub city -- like St. Louis or Minneapolis; mid US; Denver/Boulder
    -- NOAA hosted?

-   Middle of US

-   Location is not really important

-   NCSA -- Champaign, Ill.

-   Maryland

-   San Francisco in conjunction with AGU fall meeting

-   East Coast, not Greenbelt/College Park. Prefer city (like Bethesda)
    with many things in walking distance, or resort area (ocean or
    mountains) to generic hotel. But network availability important.

-   Ashville, maybe tour the NOAA archive

-   Hawaii; JPL/GSFC because of the instrument teams and flight projects

-   Maryland/Washington/Virginia (maybe Eastern Shore)

-   Colorado

-   Cancun, Mexico

-   Chicago, Denver, St. Louis, or Mpls/St. Paul, centrally located hub
    cities -- or Champaign, IL for NCSA

-   Middle of the continental United States

-   Boulder/NCAR; Nashville (?)/NCDC

-   In Maryland or Virginia, somewhere not too far from Goddard Space
    Flight Center