Policy Committee Meeting Summary:
January 27-28, 2000

Boulder, Colorado

Participants

Members	Representatives
John Merrill (Chair) Michael Biggerstaff Robert Fox David Knight Charles Murphy Mohan Ramamurthy Julie Winkler UPC Staff Sally Bates John Caron Steve Chiswell Ethan Davis Ben Domenico Steve Emmerson Joanne Graham Jo Hansen Robb Kambic Linda Miller Don Murray Russ Rew Jeff Weber Stuart Wier Anne Wilson Tom Yoksas	David Carlson (UCAR/ATD) Harry Edmon (ATAC) Jack Fellows (UCAR/UOP) David Fulker (UPC) Harry Glahn (NOAA/NWS) Clifford Jacobs (NSF/ATM) Al Kellie (UCAR/SCD) Tim Spangler (UCAR/COMET) Others Susan Jesuroga (UCAR/COMET) Joaquim Kuettner (UCAR/JOSS) Mike Jackson (UCAR/UNAVCO) Teresa Van Hove (UCAR/GST) Randolf Ware (UCAR/GST)

Administrative Matters

• The Committee welcomed Michael Biggerstaff as a new member and was introduced to Unidata's new staff members, Anne Wilson and Stuart Wier.
• Correction to last meeting's summary, The seventh bullet under GEMPAK and AWIPS discussion should read:
  "Without shared applications and data, there is no Unidata community. "
  
• The next meetings of the Policy Committee will be:
  • May 22-23, 2000, possibly at SSEC in Madison, Wisconsin
  • October 5-6, 2000, in Arlington, VA
• The May meeting will be devoted in large part to a discussion of Unidata's contributions to the GEO2000 initiatives.
• Julie Winkler complimented Unidata on the Special Session at the AMS.
  

Status Reports

Director's Report

Copies of Fulker's transparencies were distributed at the meeting. Copies of Graham's transparencies are in the notebook. Graham's presentation highlighted that the current funding outlook (flat budget for FY00 with 3% increases through 2003) will create significant funding problems starting at year-end, FY01.

Discussion

• There was considerable discussion about what the IDD feed-rate log charts are measuring. The concern expressed at that last Policy Committee meeting focused on an apparent increase in latencies, which now seems ephemeral; however, the increase in data flow rates is still of some concern. It appears that latency is independent of data volume, although how long this will hold is unknown; at some future point, the increase in volume may overwhelm capacity, then latency will be affected, but no one knows where this point is.
• There is difficulty with the CONDUIT feed from NWS/OSO, which NWS and NASA/Goddard are working on. It is not an LDM problem.
• There was concern over the small size of the UPC equipment budget. Graham and Fulker assured the committee that measures taken within the program to upgrade when possible rather than purchasing new hardware make the budget adequate for now.
• Seeking new outside funding for the sake of increasing the budget can add to workload stresses and eat away at the core mission of the program if the right synergy between current and new activities is not sought.

Users Committee Report

The summary of the last Users Committee meeting is in the notebook. Murphy presented the summary for Moody, who was unable to attend.

MetApps Report

Charles Murphy distributed a MetApps status report.

Discussion

• DIFAX will disappear from the NOAA data stream. Michael Morgan has created scripts for generating DIFAX-like maps from GEMPAK and has offered to make these available to the community and/or to add them to the IDD.
• MetApps prototypes will be demonstrated at the summer workshop, but the Users Committee is still discussing how and where this will occur.
• The long-term goal of MetApps development, as stated in the proposal to NSF, was to develop a suite of tools by 2003; since the resources did not materialize, however, the schedule cannot be met, but a new schedule has not been established.

NOAA Report

Mary Glackin has moved to NCEP. Harry Glahn will serve as NOAA representative until further notice. Glahn reported to this meeting via telephone. He noted that Gen. Kelly has established a work team to reduce the amount of redundancy in decoder development. Essentially, selected NWS office will be responsible for the development of specific decoders/encoders, which will then be released (made available to any offices needing them) as they are developed. NCEP is involved in this activity. A copy of Kelly's policy on this was faxed to Unidata and distributed at the meeting.

Glahn also reported that there are no new NIDS developments. The NWS still intends to end the agreements with NIDS vendors by September 30, 2000. However, that depends on a number of things being done by the NWS by then. If an extension is necessary, it will be done in 90-day increments. In the meantime NWS will continue adding NIDS products to the NOAAport stream in encrypted form until the agreement ends. (NWS intends, however, to remove the encryption for short test periods to allow users to test their ingest and processing of radar products.) The data will be products from individual radars. They intend to make available as much data as possible, but face competition for the bandwidth out of NWS (currently a T1) and there have been no funds identified to increase the bandwidth in FY 00 or FY 01. High- and low-resolution mosaics are now being created, including the 10-km mosaic in the AWIPS requirements, but weather offices don't yet have the capability to receive these. For the time being, these products are available on the NWS Web server. The NWS is now working on producing a 4-km mosaic.

Discussion

• There was discussion of the implications for Unidata of the volume of NIDS data. Unidata does intend to distribute as much of the data as possible, but priorities may have to be established. The NWS has asked Unidata to be a test facility for NOAAport data beginning in May, which should bring any problems to the fore.
• The timing of the cessation of the NIDS contract with vendors is awkward for the universities. They will need to decide before October whether to continue their own contracts for another year.
• McIDAS and GEMPAK have been adapted to read current NIDS products.

NASA Report

George Serafino was unable to attend the meeting.

NSF Report

Cliff Jacobs updated the committee on new leadership in the Geoscience Division (Margaret Leinen is now in place as the director; Jarvis Moyers has been appointed as director of ATM for two years, and Hermann Zimmerman is the director of Earth Sciences). On NSF's budget, Jacobs reported that GEO doesn't yet have its operating budget for this year (but most of the 7% increase to NSF went to ITR, biocomplexity, and education, so GEO is expecting a flat budget this year); the budget for 2001 should be released Feb. 7, and unconfirmed reports indicate that it includes a proposed 17% increase within five major themes (ITR, biocomplexity, 21st century workforce, nanoscale science and engineering, and unmet needs).

Jacobs urged the committee to consider Unidata activities in the context of NSF's strategic activities. He believes Unidata is mature enough to move beyond mesoscale meteorology to a broader context that is consistent with the Geoscience research agenda (See Geo2000). Jacobs then summarized the Findings and Recommendations of the National Science Board's Task Force on the Environment Interim Report.

For Bernard Grant (who was unable to attend), Jacobs reported that the equipment grants announcement is scheduled for release in February. It will have a May deadline for proposals, which NSF intends to review in June and award in July.

Discussion

• Jacobs indicated that Unidata adopting strategic goals congruent with NSF's would provide Jacobs with ammunition for prying funding out of other (non-ATM) NSF groups. He also believes that participating in these activities would enable Unidata to broaden its community.
• Unidata is clearly already aligned with some endeavors: the NSB Task Force's call for virtual centers was cited as one example (Recommendation 8). The call for more cross-disciplinary efforts would require examining Unidata's disciplinary focus (atmospheric science). There were questions about whether other disciplines had created their own "Unidatas." CORE and IRIS were cited.
• The Users Committee has long discussed the need to provide access a range of retrospective data. Methodologies for dealing with these would be applicable to many disciplines. There was a suggestion that a joint Unidata/UCAR (SCD) discussion on this with NSF might be productive. There was considerable discussion about whether Unidata's emphasis of real-time data needs to be revisited.

Action 1: The Unidata/SCD collaboration on access to data archives will be on the agenda for the next meeting, depending on Kellie's schedule.

Action 2: Following consultation with Jacobs, Fulker will draft one or more letters to NSF articulating a role for Unidata in NSF's major research initiatives for the coming decade. The letters will go out over Policy and Users Committee signatures

SuomiNet

Randolph Ware gave an overview of the SuomiNet project. A copy of the forthcoming BAMS article on SuomiNet is in the notebook. In the course of his overview he noted that 170 sites have registered, 27 of whom are from outside the U.S. They have received 33 letters of commitment covering 50 sites. (The letters formally acknowledge the site's commitment to provide infrastructure support for the receiving stations for five years.) Their proposal calls for purchasing equipment for between 70 and 100 sites; they are now in the throes of testing equipment to determine which will be purchased. Mike Jackson, who defined the specifications for the needed system, passed around one possible GPS receiver. GST expects to purchase equipment in May and to send it to participants in midsummer.

Discussion

• There was some discussion of how the data would be distributed. GST is considering a star network, whereby all raw data could be passed through selected relay sites to UNAVCO, which would provide quality assurance. Community members could elect to receive raw data or qualified data.
• GST personnel have identified some potential products but also have some information that they don't yet know how to use.
• There were questions about how to use the data. Much of the information can be turned into 2-D vertical profiles that can be assimilated into current numerical models. Committee members noted that many would be interested in using the data in regional MM5 models. Ware noted that effort would be needed to enable these new data to be assimilated into a range of models; he views this as part of the research agenda for the SuomiNet project.
• Ware was questioned about the meteorological package to be used. He noted that two have been evaluated and one is being tested. SuomiNet specifications require the ability to gather both meteorological and GPs data.

Archive Data at SSEC

Bob Fox provided a handout on the archive satellite data available from SSEC to universities. He noted that the system for provided these data is ready to go and that SSEC would like feedback on how well it works.

Discussion

• Fox was questioned about what amount of data would be considered "reasonable." He responded that this was yet to be determined.
• Committee members noted that an online facility with browse capability of the "most popular data" would be wonderful. Fox responded that the data holdings at SSEC are vast and that determining which are "most popular" would be difficult. The current retrieval system is straightforward: a request is submitted online, the requested images are loaded on a server and the requester notified. The images remain on the server for a predetermined length of time, then are removed; it is the users responsibility to download them within the specified time period.

Note: Fox was roundly applauded by the committee for this initiative.

Discussions on Collaborations

Fulker distributed a table of current and potential collaborations and asked the committee to brainstorm on how these might impact Unidata and to evaluate Jacobs' request to consider how and whether Unidata might participate in NSF's long-range goals. He noted that, at the staff retreat in October 1999, staff members had expressed the desire to keep Unidata at about its current size and they had questioned whether all the potential collaborations fit into the Unidata mission.

Discussion

• There was discussion of the impact of adding staff to the UPC to accommodate collaborations. . Spangler noted that a program's size matters. At about 40, a program encounters problems in communications but gains flexibility. At even larger sizes (60-80), Fox added, turf wars are inevitable.
• There was considerable discussion surrounding the question of whether Unidata's current five-year proposal is expressed in a manner that provides the program with a long-enough vision, or enables it to set priorities.
• When considering the expansion of Unidata, several approaches were suggested: expansion in number of services, or in disciplines served, or in geography, etc.; by examining thematic areas such as enabling technologies or information networks; or to categorize collaborations as enabling Unidata to enhance the needs of its core users or to acquire additional resources or to reach out to users in other disciplines.
• Carlson suggested that Unidata's core mission of providing data and software to users will not change; change, instead, will be forced by the evolution of technology. Implementing new technology takes 2-4 years. In this timeframe, will the funding environment change? He suggested that the strategic question facing Unidata is: should the program bend to NSF's changing vision or simply look for funding to meet the ongoing and evolving needs of its users. Fulker agreed that the constants in Unidata are the community's needs for data and support, but noted that technology change can also be viewed as a constant and that Unidata is driving some of this change.

Participation Policy

Fulker prepared a draft matrix of participation. The new concepts presented in the matrix are the lack of any geographical constraints and the requirement of a nonprofit status for receiving support. He noted that the licensing discussion is based on defining who the Unidata community contains. Ben Domenico, Joanne Graham, and Robb Kambic provided an overview of and development plan for the user-tracking system that Unidata is developing.

Discussion

• For support to be possible, users must have the ability to discuss technical matters in English. This requirement was added to the matrix.
• There was considerable discussion about the definition of "nonprofit." What about "commercial" universities? What should be Unidata's role vis-à-vis for-profit institutions? NSF's view is to engage the broader university community for wide dissemination. There were also concerns expressed about the Freedom of Information Act and how this would affect Unidata.
• Concerning the required qualification of having a research and education mission, members noted that policing data distribution beyond the first IDD tier seems unrealistic. Members also felt a service component needed to be part of the requirement. This was added to the footnotes.
• Concerning the required qualification of offering courses for credit, members questioned why data couldn't flow directly to state agencies and whether the universities (many of whom direct information to these) would be responsible for monitoring what happens to the data. The broader question of defining the scope of IDD was raised: does it end, for support, with universities?
• The "point and click" license will need to include a set of rules for data use, including restricting the right to redistribute data. Exceptions to or violations of these will need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The specter of monitoring was raised again.
• While the university should be the point of contact, this hasn't proved practical; therefore matrix allows for individuals. Individual participation, however, entails support problems since Unidata cannot provide support to students. Sorting requests by both individual and institution is one way to help define who should get support Therefore, individual affiliation is and the identification of an individual point of contact for an institution is a requirement.
• Concerning constraints on usage, public service was added to education and research and redistribution was limited to nonprofit education, research, or public service purposes.
• Unidata staff would like to expand its user base beyond synoptic mesoscale meteorology.

Action 3: The Users Committee will discuss the support issue as it pertains to the "point and click" environment.

Action 4: Prior to the next meeting of the Policy Committee, Fulker will revise the Participation Policy to reflect the consensus achieved on the participation matrix.

Action 5: Unidata will provide an demonstration of the on-line user-information tracking system at the Spring or Fall Policy Committee meeting.

LDM Development

In response to action item 4 from the last Policy Committee meeting, Russ Rew and Anne Wilson updated the committee on LDM development. In terms of short-term development, they identified two major concerns:

1. The shortage of feedtypes for new data feeds; and
2. Performance problems with the LDM product queue

Over the longer term, areas under evaluation for the next-generation IDD include:

• Routing protocols
• Improving local data management
• Simplifying configuration
• Incorporating "pull" technology

Action 6: Unidata will prepare discussion guides in advance of the May meeting and distributed them to meeting participants. Additional guests from NOAA, NASA, UOP, and others will invited.

---

Unidata Homepage

---

This page was Webified by Sally Bates.
Questions or comments can be sent to <sally@unidata.ucar.edu>.

This page was updated on .