From: ngse18@castle.ed.ac.uk (J R Evans)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Proposal for sci.geo.eosdis is badly flawed. Please withdraw
Date: 23 Jan 93 12:46:47 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: Edinburgh University

In response to my concerns that the proposal for sci.geo.eosdis is flawed 
and has not been adequately discussed, bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov 
(Barry Schlesinger) responded.  He began by remarking:

> Ms. Posinski, the proposer is in an awkward position.  Because she is 
> the vote taker, if she disagree with you, she still cannot participate 
> in any discussion.

This appears to suggest that the proposal has but one proponent -- even
Barry Schlesinger is somewhat diffident in his support.  Most curious.
But that is a digression.  Let us turn to substantive issues ...

To summarize my position, the proposal disturbs me for three reasons:
1. In the form proposed, it is simply a marketing tool for EOS data products;
2. It will occupy prime position within the fledgling sci.geo heirarchy,
   impairing its development;
3. Existing sci.geo readers have not been offered opportunity to comment.
   
Dr Schlesinger's response to the first point is ambiguous; he quotes
unidentified colleagues (perhaps Ms Posinski?):

> I talked to someone involved in the EOSDIS project about these general 
> criticisms.  Their immediate reaction, with which I am inclined to 
> agree, is that there is no parallel.  EOSDIS is not selling data
> products for private gain and profit. 

but dismisses my supporting arguments with:

> >	[comments using the inappropriate marketing analogy]
 
The first concedes the point that the material to be posted to the
group is advertising. (Remember, discussion is *not* a part of the 
group's charter -- this is *all* that will appear).  It attempts to
justify the position on the grounds that the products are not being
sold for "private gain and profit".  Do I really need to rehearse the
reasons why this is not an adequate defence?  

Dr Schlesinger appears to be out of touch with the way science works these 
days; government supported institutions like NASA and my own employer 
have to justify their existence, recovering costs to the extent they are 
able.  Marketing is a critical issue to those who manage these organisations.  
Science management audits ask pointedly how many of these data products 
are sold, what the level of subsidy is, whether any collateral income is 
generated, whether customer organisations have employed the net subsidy 
effectively, etc, and if the answers aren't satisfactory, that product is 
chopped and the staff are made redundant.  It's tough.  If a government 
feels it's getting better value from one agency rather than another, it 
switches funds.  Agencies are in *competition* for these funds. 'Marketing' 
and 'advertising' are part of that territory, and NASA advertises its 
products for exactly the same reason as DEC does -- to gain an advantage 
over its competitors.  The proposal for distributing this advertising on an 
exclusive basis through sci.geo.eosdis is repugnant for all the reasons that 
a similar proposal for advertisement of DEC products within the comp 
heirarchy would be.

Dr Schlesinger doesn't address my other concerns, but to respond to
some of the subsidiary points he raises:

> [Discourse on sci.geo.fluids deleted]

s.g.f was the first sci.geo group to be created.  It is accepted that it
covers a somewhat narrow area; it is also accepted that it is functioning
well within the terms of its charter, and that such a group would be
required in a fully developed sci.geo heirarchy.  So if it ain't broke ...
 
> Anyway, discussion of a group covering all aspects of remote sensing 
> could affect other hierarchies within the net (sci.space, for example) 
> and should have been in news.groups.  I follow news.groups.  I haven't 
> seen it there.

The discussion within sci.geo groups occurred a few months ago -- indeed
it has been discussed on more than one occasion -- and the point you make
was raised in that context.  As it was not felt timely to create such a
group within the sci.geo heirarchy, there was no proposal against which 
to issue an RFD.  If the sci.space community wish to raise a proposal, 
the sci.geo community would surely welcome an opportunity to re-examine 
the issue.

> Well, sci.space.news has a heavy, but not exclusive, dose of 
> announcments from the NASA Public Affairs Office and from NASA 
> centers.  

I repeat, I do not object to the distribution of EOS product announcements
within appropriate groups; in fact, I welcome them.  My problem lies with
the creation of a prominent group *exclusively* for that purpose (and in
the manner of its doing).  I suggest that the best way to resolve the 
issue is for Ms Posinski to withdraw the CFV and enter constructive
discussion with the sci.geo readership.

Russ Evans
British Geological Survey, Edinburgh
Usual disclaimers apply
Xref: sparky news.groups:25992 talk.religion.misc:27165