Attending: Renee, Pat, Jack, John, Zoe, Bob
Renee provided an update on recent NSF travels to Europe. The Joint Committee is asking for a document to demonstrate the benefits the telescope project would provide for Greenland (i.e. a Benefits Impact assessment–which in the past has typically been for industrial interests looking to begin work in Greenland). NSF also discussed including more Greenlandic training through the Danish Technical University and about plans for Station Nord.
We discussed the Summit/Isi white paper updates. Pat thinks that the white paper most needed at this point in time from an NSF-standpoint is a 1 page executive summary, with maybe a second page to include a graphic. We discussed disemminating this document on ARCUS and/or ArcticInfo, as well as posting it on the GeoSummit website. Action item: SCO (Zoe) will contact the ICECAPS PI’s and explain the intended audience for the existing document, as well as a plan forward (i.e. multiple documents) regarding an email that was sent to NSF earlier.
We discussed the issue of granularity, using two recent cases where changes to logistical plans were called out as “scope creep,” where we saw significant attention being paid to these changes in the facilities reports for what we perceived as minor changes. In both cases, the logistical were more involved than we perceived, but we discussed the need to have some flexibility, especially for PI’s first visiting Summit, to have leeway in their planning and last minute help with logistics. We are not aware of any instance where a PI was not able to obtain the last-minute or late requests, but want to make sure that the issue is brought up, and that PI’s are not blamed for all changes/budget increases associated with them.
Attending: Jack, Zoe, John and Bob
We discussed plans for updating the white paper(s), namely the need to have both a living document that would encapsulate all the science currently being conducted at Summit, as well as a significantly shorter document, or documents, which will summarize key aspects of Summit/Isi for stakeholders/policy makers. This shorter version will probably take shape as something intended for the division-level NSF managers, NSF top floor, and congressional staff. A separate vision document might also be warranted to encapsulate future directions.
SCO would like to send more than one SCO rep, depending on availability, to upcoming GLRP meetings and charrettes, and will follow up with NSF and CPS about that possibility.
We discussed plans for finishing two major tasks, the Summit GIS and the Summit Virtual Tour. Bob is working on the GPS protocols, with students writing and beta testing the protocols. Timeline for delivery of these protocols is April 16th. John has agreed to take over assimilation of historical data into the GIS, with a completion timeframe of the end of May. Zoe will contact Brian Vassel about the status of the Google Streetview for Summit, and in the meantime, move forward with getting her own panoramas of the station assembled, annotated, and on the GeoSummit website. John has offered to help in getting the images on the website.
We discussed the granularity observed in CPS reporting of support for various projects, and what we are hoping to discuss with NSF on Weds’s call.
As a last topic, we discussed the possibility of encapsulating Thule science into the current SCO role. Zoe found in her recent trip to Thule that the most important topics to current Thule scientists, namely bear safety and shipment of frozen samples back to home institutions in the US, are the same for many of the Summit user group. Zoe will follow up by contacting the list of Thule PIs provided during a Thule-SCO teleconference facilitated by Jen Mercer.