Policy Committee Meeting Summary: September 17-18, 1992

Washington, D.C.

Participants

Members	Representatives	UPC Staff
Robert Fox (Chair)	G. William Curtis (UCAR)	Mitch Baltuch
Otis Brown	David Fulker (UPC)	Sally Bates
Russell DeSouza	Robert Gall (NCAR/MMM)	Ben Domenico
John Nielsen	Clifford Jacobs (NSF)	Linda Henderson
Gabor Vali	Douglas Sargeant (NOAA)	Linda Miller
Carlyle Wash	Timothy Spangler (COMET)	Sandra Nilsson
	Others	Tom Yoksas
	Richard Greenfield (NSF)

Administrative Matters

The summary of the June 1992 meeting was accepted as written.
The next meetings of the Policy Committee will be
17-18 December, Thursday and Friday, in Boulder, Colorado
4-5 March, Thursday and Friday, in Tucson, Arizona

Status Reports

Director's Report
Copies of Dave's transparencies were distributed at the meeting.

Discussion

There was concern expressed about the direction and pace of YNOT development and its difficult of use. There has been minimal feedback from beta sites, who aren't really testing the software. The general release should solve some of the problems and should be the basis for evaluation.
YNOT's greatest strength is as an algorithm development tool but need to have push-button access to the software or people won't use it.
The development of the skew-T template confuses the perceived role of YNOT: is it a core software package or an integration tool?
YNOT needs to combine satellite imagery with other data: this was the impetus for its development; in the intervening time, however, the capabilities of other software, e.g., McIDAS have evolved. The role of YNOT today needs to be clarified.

Action 1:
The Policy Committee asks the UPC to prepare a thorough review of the status of YNOT, including its origins, its development to date, and the UPC's view of its future role and relationship with other UPC-supported packages. This review should be scheduled as the first item for discussion at the next Policy Committee meeting.

Action 2:
The Policy Committee asks the Users Committee to select a small number of community representatives with YNOT experience, including IWG members if appropriate, to contribute to the discussion of YNOT at the next Policy Committee meeting.

The UPC's redesign of the inquiry tracking system using current WAIS standards and its current good relations with the GEMPAK developer were commended.
There was concern expressed about the speed of Internet data distribution implementation. There is considerable pressure building within the community for this development and it shouldn't be frustrated.
Internet data distribution involves three separate areas of endeavor: software development, administration and maintenance of the network in the university setting and the architecture of the distribution system. UPC needs to address all three but might ask the Users Committee to help address the topology question.
There was concern expressed about who will maintain the Internet system once it's implemented and how much this will cost; the notion of the data being "free" was questioned since campuses pay Internet connection fees and NSF is reserving the right to charge use fees as well. The UPC needs to identify the incremental costs of Internet data distribution.
While NOAA appears committed to supplying universities with access to experimental data, the agency is very concerned with security, with ensuring that the universities accept that these are EXPERIMENTAL, not operational data (there will be no resending lost data), and with being shielded from support questions from individual sites.

Resolution 1:
The Unidata Policy Committee asks the UPC to:

temporarily redirect resources currently allocated to support the proposed scientific programmer III to expedite Internet data distribution activities;
develop a plan, including information on resource needs, for implementing a "full-up" Internet data distribution system by 1 January 1994.
develop a plan, with resource needs, to maintain the proposed Internet data distribution system;
assess the impact of expediting the implementation and operation of the Internet data distribution system on currently scheduled Unidata activities.

There were questions about NMC's plans for using the LDM; they plan to use it to distribute data for their own purposes as well as to help universities access more data.
The committee was informed that there is some perception within the community that participation in Unidata committees is controlled by a local group, the "Colorado Mafia." The UPC should make it clear to the community that non-university members, such as FSL representatives, are invited only when there are technical issues addressed that would benefit from their input.

Budget Report
Copies of Sandy's transparencies are in the notebook.

Discussion

"Level funding" for Unidata would create severe problems: while NSF has been funding Unidata at a level of about $1.7 million, Unidata has been spending at a much higher level: at a $2.4 million/year rate as of September 1992. Unidata would be unable to undertake the work as proposed with level funding.
NSF's budget is predicted to be level with last year's at best; there was considerable discussion about Unidata possible response; there was general agreement in the end that Unidata should not alter its resource allocations in anticipation of the budget but continue on its current path until the program is informed of the actual budget.
While Unidata may seek alternative sources of funds, in the experience of the committee members, non-NSF funds would eventually bring pressures to change the scope and vision of the program, which the Policy Committee would oppose. Equally, NSF should be clearly aware of the consequences of underfunding the program; the UPC should prepare an impact statement that, if needed, could be made available to NSF quickly.

Users Committee Report
The committee has not met since the last Policy Committee meeting.

Discussion

The size of the Users Committee, the frequency of its meetings and the length of its members' terms were discussed.
The report on the June 1991 Unidata Users Workshop will appear in the next AMS bulletin. COMET has set aside funds in its budget to support the 1994 workshop.

Action 3:
The term of Users Committee appointments is three years, and the UPC will ensure that appointments are staggered across years.

Resolution 2:
The Policy Committee resolves to increase the Unidata Users Committee membership by one person.

IWG Report
Ben appraised the committee of the IWG actions and resolutions and summarized the discussions behind each. Copies of the draft IWG minutes were distributed at the meeting.

Discussion

SSEC will support OS/2 and retrofit new McIDAS capabilities to it until the community does not need that operating system.

Resolution 3:
The Unidata Policy Committee accepts and endorses the resolutions put forth by the IWG at its September 1992 meeting with the proviso that the UPC will establish reasonable sunsetting procedures for IWG Resolution 3. The IWG resolutions from this meeting read as follows:
IWG Resolution 1: The IWG endorses Unidata's plans to implement YNOT user interface under MOTIF only.
IWG Resolution 2: The IWG adopts Russ's recommendation 1, 2, and 3, as stated in his handout.Russ Rew's recommendations 1-3recommends that the Unidata Policy Committee adopt the following UPC recommendations:

The UPC should support systems and applications software on only the latest generally available operating system release for each supported platform.
The UPC should provide binary versions of Unidata systems and applications software for each supported platform, as well as making the source code available to licensed users.
The UPC should only support source distributions for a single development environment (compiler, include files, libraries) on each platform, instead of trying to support multiple combinations of available development environments on supported platforms.

IWG Resolution 3: The IWG recommends that the Unidata Policy Committee adopt the following UPC recommendation:

The UPC should cease supporting Sun 3 and VAXstation platforms.

IWG Resolution 4: The IWG recommends that the Unidata Users Committee investigate the use of the SUNY-EPRI lightning network by the Unidata community.
IWG Resolution 5: The IWG recommends that the UPC work with the SSEC to integrate the Unidata/Wisconsin transmission into the LDM4 data feed.
IWG Resolution 6: The IWG recommends that the UPC investigate the advisability of supporting OS/2 machines to function as leaf nodes on the LDM4 data feed.

NSF Report
Cliff reported that NSF is looking for a new director for the ATM division and hopes to have the position filled quickly. He reported that the budget situation is not clear. He also reported that NSF head Walter Massey is attempting to clarify NSF goals; he has formed a committee to recommend new directions for the agency that stress cooperation with others. Unidata may become an example of NSF's new goals.

Cliff also reported on the equipment awards: $75,000 were expended from the Unidata equipment grants with an additional $15,000 in funds expended being contributed by the Education division of NSF.

NOAA Report
Doug Sargeant gave an update on the status of GOES. The remaining GOES-7 is moving west slowly and is expected to stay operational for another year or two; the NoGOES planning involves using data from U.S. polar orbiters and Meteosat at 98� West. The GOES-Next imager has been bench-tested; the sounder is being tested, and the craft is scheduled for launch in the spring of 94.

In other matters, the best and final proposals for AWIPS were receiving in July and are now being reviewed with award scheduled for late November. Estimate that AWIPS development will take about 2 years before testing can begin.

NOAA has form a Systems Program Office (SPO) as a separate line office that reports to NOAA headquarters; this office specializes in acquisition management for all programs including GOES, NEXRAD, AWIPS, ASOS. The Lincoln Labs have been hired as technical consultants to this office.

External Programs Status
Linda Miller reported that UPC staff had installed an LDM at NMC and hope to begin shipping ADA model data as a test. Other data from NMC may include 8-month forecast of ocean/atmosphere; FSL's MAPS and ACARs data. While the NMC is excited about the prospects of distributed experimental data, they are concerned about data management and want users to realize that these data streams are not operational: missing data will not be rebroadcast. They are also concerned that access to these data be limited to universities for use in education and research only. The NMC will ask that the responsibilities of all parties involved in the distribution of experimental data be clearly spelled out in operation and implementation plans.

Linda reported that negotiations with NOAA concerning access to NIDS data is progressing (letters between Friday and Anthes are in the notebook) and that there has been another protest of the lightning award.[Note: since the first draft of these minutes, teh protest has been resolved and the contract has been awarded to Alden/Zephyr.--Ed.]

netCDF Discussion

Issue: What should Unidata's role be in the further development and support of netCDF? Is continued control of netCDF necessary to the Unidata program?

There are many others working on netCDF, particularly in the visualization world.
Compaction of variable-length records still lacking; netCDF rejected as format for CDROMs because of this. Might be advantageous to address this before turning software loose.
Format for EOSDIS still being discussed; may have more than one.
UPC might assess whether there are other mechanisms for supporting the software.
UCAR seeking advice on how to handle data coordination in general. Committee members expressed opinion that UCAR focus on user access rather than on data formats. Coordination means being aware of different paths, not necessarily adopting a single path. Does anyone know about all the various format efforts throughout UCAR/NCAR? The Data Coordination effort should focus on providing reasonable service to the community while reducing duplication of efforts. Efficiency in creating access programs, not efficiency of storage, should be the goal.
NWS will be producing CDROMs to support training in its field offices; COMET has recommended using netCDF for them. The format decision for these has not yet been made.

Action 4:
An article on the Unidata view of netCDF should appear in the Unidata Newsletter.

Action 5:
The UPC will draft a position paper on the role of netCDF within UCAR and within the atmospheric sciences community with recommendations for its future and ask the IWG for comments. This paper should elucidate the UPC "corporate philosophy": on data formats and on the requirements of Unidata-support software.

Access by Foreign Universities

It is the informal policy of the Unidata Policy Committee to allow access to Unidata by foreign universities on a case-by-case basis.

Discussion

Need to find out what the universities can contribute to the Unidata Program.
What happens when the Zephyr broadcast disappears? Since agencies (NSF, NOAA) hold different views on access by foreigners, Internet data distribution may become a problem.
The Policy Committee needs to hold responsibility for allowing access.
Current request is from the University of Monterey in Mexico; connected to the Internet with good connections to NCAR; does not appear to have any major collaborations with U.S. universities at the moment. Might be good case for assess impact of foreign universities on Unidata support.

Action 6:
UPC will request a letter from the University of Monterey formally requesting to participate in the Unidata Program.

Resolution 4:
The Unidata Policy Committee is favorably disposed to accepting a foreign university as a Unidata site, pending the receipt of a letter formally requesting participating and clarifying the university's contribution to the Unidata Program.

Unidata Proposal to NSF

Cliff Jacobs reported that he ask 12 people to review the Unidata proposal: 1 declined, 1 has not reported (and Cliff no longer expects to hear from that site). Of the 10 reviews: 6 rated Unidata as excellent, 2 as very good, and 2 as good.He chose the reviewers to represent meteorologists, technical experts, small schools, large schools, federal and state government agencies, industry and previous reviewers of Unidata. He is now preparing a list of the issues raised by the reviewers for response by the UPC.

Discussion

The Unidata committees may be helpful in responding to some of the issues raised by the reviewers.
The UPC response to the reviewers should be submitted to NSF by mid-October.

Action 7:
UPC will circulate the list of questions raised by the NSF proposal reviews to the Users Committee and seek its input. The UPC and Bob Fox will collate the comments and draft a reply to NSF, sending a copy of the reply to the committee as well.

Reviewer 8 questions costs for Unidata/Wisconsin channel; contract covers more than data; includes software support. Reviewer has naive view of costs of data acquisition. However, IWG now considering question of Internet data distribution of McIDAS images; Unidata may be moving away from an end-to-end service like Unidata McIDAS and it is conceivable that SSEC may provide little data for the program in the future.
Visualization software development is not an appropriate endeavor for Unidata; fostering communications among visualization developers would be more appropriate role.

Action 8:
The UPC will include the Unidata Users Committee in its list of recipients of its biweekly Status Reports.

Software Integration Discussion

In an off-the-cuff estimate, the UPC gave the following estimates of time spent on its various software packages:
YNOT: 1 FTE + financial resources to MDA (all development)
WXP: miniscule
GEMPAK: 1 FTE (1/3 support; 2/3 development)
McIDAS: 1+ FTE (3/4 support, 1/4 development)
netCDF operators: 1 FTE (all development)
LDM: 1FTE (1/5 support, 4/5 development)
netCDF: 1/2 FTE (1/3 support; 2/3 development)
Where should Unidata's resources be spent: on rapid development of mature systems or slow development of new, break-through systems?
UPC facing problem of nomenclature: modularity means what?
Doubts were expressed that a super package is possible. The failure of Microsoft Works is a case in point. It was not successful because everyone wants different things.
UPC still needs to address problem of interoperability. This still needs to be highest priority but also UPC needs to consider how many packages should be made interoperable.
The community's responsibility is to define UPC's goals; it is UPC's responsibility to determine how to accomplish the goals. UPC might find it useful to create a system architecture plan to allow the packages to be evaluated in a common way.

Operating Systems

This topic was not discussed and no actions were recommended.

List of Resolution and Action Items

Resolution 1:
The Unidata Policy Committee asks the UPC to:

temporarily redirect resources currently allocated to support the proposed scientific programmer III to expedite Internet data distribution activities;
develop a plan, including information on resource needs, for implementing a "full-up" Internet data distribution system by 1 January 1994.
develop a plan, with resource needs, to maintain the proposed Internet data distribution system;
assess the impact of expediting the implementation and operation of the Internet data distribution system on currently scheduled Unidata activities.

Resolution 2:
The Policy Committee resolves to increase the Unidata Users Committee membership by one person.

Resolution 3:
The Unidata Policy Committee accepts and endorses the resolutions put forth by the IWG at its September 1992 meeting with the proviso that the UPC will establish reasonable sunsetting procedures for IWG Resolution 3. The IWG resolutions from this meeting read as follows:
IWG Resolution 1: The IWG endorses Unidata's plans to implement YNOT user interface under MOTIF only.
IWG Resolution 2: The IWG recommends that the Unidata Policy Committee adopt the following UPC recommendations:

The UPC should support systems and applications software on only the latest generally available operating system release for each supported platform.
The UPC should provide binary versions of Unidata systems and applications software for each supported platform, as well as making the source code available to licensed users.
The UPC should only support source distributions for a single development environment (compiler, include files, libraries) on each platform, instead of trying to support multiple combinations of available development environments on supported platforms.

IWG Resolution 3: The IWG recommends that the Unidata Policy Committee adopt the following UPC recommendation:

The UPC should cease supporting Sun 3 and VAXstation platforms.

IWG Resolution 4: The IWG recommends that the Unidata Users Committee investigate the use of the SUNY- EPRI lightning network by the Unidata community.
IWG Resolution 5: The IWG recommends that the UPC work with the SSEC to integrate the Unidata/Wisconsin transmission into the LDM4 data feed.
IWG Resolution 6: The IWG recommends that the UPC investigate the advisability of supporting OS/2 machines to function as leaf nodes on the LDM4 data feed.

Done: on the agenda.

Done. In notebook.

Action 3:
The term of Users Committee appointments is three years, and the UPC will ensure that appointments are staggered across years.

Noted.

Action 4:
An article on the Unidata view of netCDF should appear in the Unidata Newsletter.

Pending.

Planned.

Action 6:
UPC will request a letter from the University of Monterey formally requesting to participate in the Unidata Program.

Done.

Action 8:
The UPC will include the Unidata Users Committee in its list of recipients of its biweekly Status Reports.

Done.

Index

Unidata Homepage

This page was Webified by Jennifer Philion.
Questions or comments can be sent to <support@unidata.ucar.edu>.

This page was updated on .