Policy Committee Meeting Summary: December 17-18, 1992

Boulder, Colorado

Participants

Members	Representatives	UPC Staff
Robert Fox (Chair)	William Bonner (UCAR)	Sally Bates
Otis Brown	David Fulker (UPC)	Ben Domenico
Steven Mullen	Robert Gall (NCAR/MMM)	Linda Miller
John Nielsen	Richard Reed (UCAR Board of Trustees)	Sandra Nilsson
Gabor Vali
Carlyle Wash

Administrative Matters

The summary of the March 1992 meeting was accepted as written.
A new representative from NASA needs to be chosen; Fox and Fulker will work with Bonner and Anthes to see that one is appointed.
The next meetings of the Policy Committee will be:
March 4-5, Thursday and Friday, in Boulder
June 14-15, Monday and Tuesday, in Boulder
(Tentative) October 7-8, Thursday and Friday, in Washington, D.C.

Status Reports

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

Discussion

Unidata, like NCAR, is facing uncertain funding because the NSF budget has not yet been set.
New Unidata sites tend to be unfamiliar with UNIX and project that this condition will continue in the future. The UPC has assigned 1/2 FTE to helping new users train on UNIX; the arrangement is working well.

Budget Report
Copies of Sandra Nilsson's transparencies were distributed.

Discussion

The budget figures used were provided by NSF; they assume level funding for Unidata.

Users Committee Report
A summary of the last Users Committee meeting was in the notebook.

Discussion

The frequency of the Users Committee meetings was discussed. There was general agreement that the committeed needed to meet year devoted to planning national workshops.
Planning for a national workshop takes time; it requires about 8 months to secure funding.
COMET would like to hold a two-week mesoscale coure prior to the 1994 workshop.
The Policy Committee would like the Users Committee to become an active voice for the community.

Action 1:
The Users Committee should start planning the 1994 workshop as soon as possible.

Action 2:
The Users Committee should seek information from users on the functionality desired by the community and coordinate its findings with the work in this area being undertaken by Cliff Mass.

External Programs Status
Copies of Miller's transparencies were distributed at the meeting.

Discussion

It's important to try to discern how other (non-Unidata) institutions view the potential of using the internet for data distribution since potential use will affect the scope and sizing of the system.
NOAA now receives about a dozen requests per year for special data; they are hoping that the Internet data distribution system will help them better meet the university needs.
The UPC's goal in devising the network data distribution system is to provide large amounts of data to a large number of universities. It's goal is NOT to be a point-to-point distyributor, either for a single user or for a single distributor. The Policy Committee may need to form a committee equivalent to the old McBE committee.
The draft MOA with NOAA needs to be revisited; portrays Unidata as a common carrier instead of a facilitator. The agreement contains no mechanisms for conveying university,Policy Committee, or UPC concerns to NOAA.

NSF Report
Jacobs was unable to attend the meeting. Fulker met with Jacobs a week prior to this Policy Committee meeting and reported that:

Jacobs has recommended funding the Unidata proposal and that funding may be under a cooperative agreement rather than a grant;
Jacobs has reiterated that Unidata should plan for level funding, and that the funds are to include hardware grants to universities;
Jacobs reports that the NSF networking group continues to express interest in Unidata;
There were some instances where Jacobs' and Fulker's interpretations of the reviewers question were different, but that Jacobs particularly like Fulker's response to question 8.12.

NOAA Report
Doug Sargeant was unable to attend the meeting. Miller spoke with him and reported that:

AWIPS has been delayed again.
NEXRAD commissioning has been delayed until May.
Concerning Fulker's presentation to the NOAA troika,they did not fully understand the technical aspects of the Internet Data Distribution and the process required to create a reliable system for data access and dissemination to the university community.
Sargeant agrees with Anthes' position on the inclusion of government labs in the Unidata Program with a quid pro quo. However, he also noted that the SSEC should be able to circumscribe the delivery of its data stream to non-universities.
The price of NOAA data may be changing.

Fox gave a brief update on the status of NOAA satellites:

GOES I will not be launched before 1995.
GOES 7 will probably fail in 1994.
Meteosat will probably fail in 1994 or early 1995.
A host of new satellite instruments have been or are about to be launched; Unidata should keep an eye on these since data from them may be of interest to the community.
NOAA will decide in 1995-1996 what to do with the Polar orbitor in the year 2000; this is a window of oportunity for university input into the decision-making process.

YNOT Assessment

Fulker gave a brief summary of YNOT's history with recommendations for how it should be handled in the near future. Copies of his transparencies were distributed at the meeting. There was then a demonstration of the software by Fulker and Mitch Baltuch.

Discussion

There are no sites currently using YNOT. Need 3-5 sites for thorough testing. Perhaps UPC should institute a formal evaluation structure and ask for a committment from the sites to perform a range of beta tests. This would help in future decisions regarding YNOT. On one hand, we can't declare that YNOT "doesn't work" if no one has tried to use it. On the other hand, if the UPC can't find anyone to even test it, this would indicate that it truely isn't needed.
MDA may be willing to work with sites directly; if users can articulate what they want, MDA may be interested in undertaking the development.
Appearance of McIDAS-X has changed the environment in which YNOT was conceived; the two need to be carefully compared.
YNOT is more of a research tool more than a teaching tool, since overlays on satellite images (which is hard to do with YNOT) is needed only for classrooms.. It maybe of interest to satellite and radar meteorologists, who do not necessarily have the same interests as synopticians. UPC should attempt to identify potential tester from the former groups.
UPC might want to create a video of YNOT's capabilities. Should be prepared to demo it at the AMS.
UPC long-term goal is to be able to use any graphic from any application and overlay it on any image. YNOT is the tool for this. Its spreadsheet paradigm may allow linking to the LDM in new and unusual ways.
Ynot will require worksheets before anyone will even attempt to use it.
Ultimately, UPC hopes these will be developed by the community, but some minimal set will be required before anyone in the community will be interested in even attempting to use YNOT. This is a Catch-22, since UPC does not have resources to both develop YNOT worksheets AND focus on network data distribution. Perhaps UPC should seek outside funds for YNOT development.

Action 3:
The topic of whether to undertake an extensive collaborative evaluation of YNOT will appear on the agenda for the next PolCom meeting.

Resolution 1:
The Policy Committee recommends that the UPC finish and release the YNOT-GEMPAK drivers and the current YNOT worksheets and seek out a small number of potential sites for an extensive collaborative evaluation of YNOT.

Internet Data Distribution

Domenico presented the UPC's plan for achieving the Internet data distribution system as quickly as possible. Copies of his overheads were distributed at the meeting.

Discussion

K-12 institutions are envisioned as entering the system through local higher-education institutions; UPC would not be providing support in the K-12 environment.
Envision a four-year effort implement and size the system; if the UPC receives extra resources, can develop and test the system by the first quarter of 1994
The time lines in the notebook assume level-funding. By the term "full-up, the UPC means 6-12 sites initially; UPC can't implement to 100 without experiences from test with smaller numbers. Can't build a data-recovery system, for example, until we know what kind of reliability proglems there are. Also don't know what kind of feedback will result as people reconfigure connections to increase reliability.
Zephyr is disappearing into Alden; there are uncertainties as to what this means for the Unidata program. Unidata is keeping Zephyr informed of the Internet developments. Alden hopes to keep remote sites that are unable to connect to Internet.
UPC have developed a list of criteria for first-level sites; plan to extend this to second level sites. Unidata sites need to understand that implementation will be slow; Internet distribution is not quick way to avoid Zephyr fees.
The tradeoffs between UPC's development efforts on Internet data distribution and other software development/integration effort was a focus for considerable discussion.
- UPC prefers to continue with some small level of software integration, perhaps by a visitor appointment; Tom and Peggy will also continue with their part-time integration efforts.Peggy, for example, will continue investigating the issues involved in integrateing netCDF and GEMPAK.
- The netCDF operators are at a good stopping place with the release of the first templates.
- UPC has been working intesively with COMET and FSL to set netCDF conventions that will hold over time and for real-time and retrospective data; both FSL and COIMET have adopted netCDF. These efforts will continue.
- The sacrifice will come in YNOT development and support. With level funding, full test of YNOT will result in slippages for Internet data delivery. If UPC receives a small increment in funds, then will have to decide whether to spend it on YNOT or software integration. And if the YNOT test shows that there is a large gap between YNOT's current capabilities and what the users want, then there will have to be a decision whether to spend programmer resources on YNOT.

Resolution 2:
The Policy Committee endorses the UPC plan that would lead to a fully tested network data distribution system (except for automatic data recovery) by the first quarter of 1994, if no additional resources are received. The plan calls for:

Continuing support for McIDAS and GEMPAK
Continuing support of sites installing Unidata systems on UNIX for the first time
Suspending software integration and netCDF operator development
Suspending further development of YNOT (beyond the GEMPAK driver and current worksheets)
Resulting in a fully tested overall system of network data distribution by thrid quarter 1994.

Participation in Unidata by Government Labs

Fox proposed that the world of potential Unidata sites be divided into three categories: core institutions ( namely, U.S. universities engaged in teaching and research); institutions where synergy is possible (e.g., government labs, high schools, non-U.S. universities); and all others (commercial firms).

Core:

To have the highest-priority consideration in terms of Unidata resources at all times
Represented by Policy Committee
Data and delivery subsidized
Entitled to donated software
Automatically meet all criteria for elligibility to participate in Unidata.

Organizations having potential synergies with Unidata:

Membership would be mutually beneficial
Membership contingent upong recommendation by the Policy Committee
May be required to contribute to Unidata's support effort.
Data and delivery --?
Not entitled to donated software; access to such software to be determined by donors.

All others:

Should be directed to commercial providers
Data and delivery are not subsidized
Are not entitled to anything.

Discussion

Boundaries between the categories are not hard and fast: labs hire students and sometimes are engaged in teaching, for example.
Need to be careful in developing the criteria for classification. E.g., is a "Unidata site" a department or an institution?
An OMB circular says that government agencies must share software and cannot impose royalties on each other, but it doesn't say the sofware or support for the software must be free.
In terms of training workshops, core institutions will always have priority; institutions with synergy can participate in training workshops upon invitation and only if space isn't needed for a core institution.
Need to maintain sensitivity to UCAR and NCAR relations with institutions; a particular site might have synergisms with UCAR, but not Unidata, for example.
May want to consider developing a matrix: traditional Unidata sites, government labs at universities, other federal labs, government agencies, and non U.S. universities evaluated on access to Unidata software, contributed software, Unidata broadcast, and training workshops. The matrix, however, should be for the committee's information only, since the Policy Committee should maintain the freedom to alter access on a case-by-case basis if desired.

Action 4:
Fox and Fulker will draft a policy paper outlining the committee's view of the criteria to be applied in classifying potential Unidata members. The purpose is to develop guidelines for Unidata membership that will protect the mission, charter, and core constituency of the Unidata program will promoting the best interest of the atmospheric sciences. This draft summary will be circulated to the Policy Committee, to UCAR, and to the UCAR Board of Trustees.

Policy Committee Administrative Issues

The committee discussed potential changes to Unidata's committee structures.

Discussion:

Since scheduling a December meeting is so difficult, the Policy Committee members agreed that three meetings a year should be sufficient. These meetings should regularly be in February, June, and October (except for 1993; the next meeting had already been sceduled for 4-5 March). If the agenda warrants, these meetings may extend to two full days.
Policy Committee needs help in maintaining balance between what's wanted and what's feasible.
The IWG is currently serves as a focus for internal planning and, in the proposal to NSF, is party to traige decisions. Therefore functions of IWG should be continued; however, much of the technical discussion can be handled via email with meetings called only when necessary. Mission of the group should be articulated: to provide advise on technical issues to the Policy Committee and to be a reservoir of specialized technical expertise for the UPC. Mission may need to be phrased in terms of Unidata's core constituency.
Need to keep the Users Committee focused on users and it should be more active.

Resolution 3:
The Policy Committee recommends that it's meetings be cut back to three per year.

Resolution 4:
The Policy Committee recommends that the Unidata Users Committee be authorized to meeting up to three times per year at the discretion of the committee and its chair.

Action 5:
The UPC should consider inviting the chair of the Users Committee to participate in Policy Committee meetings.

Resolution 5:
The Policy Committee recommends that UCAR dissolve the Implementation Working Group and form a Technical Advisory Groups that would be authorized to meet up to twice a year if its members deemed it necessary.

Action 6:
Domenico and Brown will plan the new committee, to take effect in April 1993.

NEXRAD Data

Miller summarized the current status of NEXRAD and distributed a sample of the letter send as part of UPC's Requestion for Information from NEXRAD vendors. She reported that:

All the vendors are adamant about restricting the reditribution of data and about restricting use to research and education.
Some vendors are unfamiliar with the concept of Internet data distribution.
UPC wants to take advance of NWS promise of funds to undertake the function of distributing NEXRAD data to universities; assome that this will give the UPC some clout in negotiating with the vendors. Furthermore, UPC costs must necessarily be independent of the number of sites. Fulker sees only two possible scenarios:
1) Unidata pays a central fee for all universities
2) Universities pay a vendor a license fee.
The choice of scenario will depend on the type of communication envisioned: should the UPC try to get everyone access at once, or leave it to individual universities to establish access to a particular radar (they would then pass the data on to other universities).

Discussion

Need to consider data levels. What do universities really want? Most will want continental scale composites. Most will want to see data from a local radar. Only a few will want regional data at all levels. Vendors will carry only the NIDS.
Since there are ofted long time periods without data, maybe UPC should consider using a query-response model. Would be difficult to scale in the fact of a dramatic even that everyone wants to see.
Need to think about the role of stored data; not all the data will be stored by anyone; so, if you don't grab it when you see it, you can't get it. Unidata cannot play this role, since has more than enough to handle real-time data. Will NCDC archive?

Action 7:
The UPC will develop scenarios and models for handling NEXRAD data and report to the Policy Committee at its March Meeting. Anyone is free to provide input on this.

Other Issues:

SSEC is still struggling with the problem of how to access lightning data.
The proposal to NSF for Skymath has been submitted.

List of Resolutions and Action Items

Continuing support for McIDAS and GEMPAK
Continuing support of sites installing Unidata systems on UNIX for the first time
Suspending software integration and netCDF operator development
Suspending further development of YNOT (beyond the GEMPAK driver and current worksheets)
Resulting in a fully tested overall system of network data distribution by thrid quarter 1994.

Resolution 3:
The Policy Committee recommends that it's meetings be cut back to three per year.

Resolution 4:
The Policy Committee recommends that the Unidata Users Committee be authorized to meeting up to three times per year at the discretion of the committee and its chair.

Action 1:
The Users Committee should start planning the 1994 workshop as soon as possible.

In progress.

Action 2:
The Users Committee should seek information from users on the functionality desired by the community and coordinate its findings with the work in this area being undertaken by Cliff Mass.

In progress.

Action 3:
The topic of whether to undertake an extensive collaborative evaluation of YNOT will appear on the agenda for the next PolCom meeting.

Done.

Done. In notebook.

Action 5:
The UPC should consider inviting the chair of the Users Committee to participate in Policy Committee meetings.

Done.

Action 6:
Domenico and Brown will plan the new committee, to take effect in April 1993.

Done.

Action 7:
The UPC will develop scenarios and models for handling NEXRAD data and report to the Policy Committee at its March Meeting. Anyone is free to provide input on this.

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 .