1 / 4

Disposition of Action Items from MPARWG October 2008 H. K. (Rama) Ramapriyan NASA/GSFC

Disposition of Action Items from MPARWG October 2008 H. K. (Rama) Ramapriyan NASA/GSFC Metrics Planning and Reporting (MPAR) WG 8 th Earth Science Data Systems Working Group Wilmington, DE October 20-22, 2009. MPAR Working Group – Disposition of 2008 Action Items.

elroy
Download Presentation

Disposition of Action Items from MPARWG October 2008 H. K. (Rama) Ramapriyan NASA/GSFC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Disposition of Action Items from MPARWG October 2008 H. K. (Rama) Ramapriyan NASA/GSFC Metrics Planning and Reporting (MPAR) WG 8th Earth Science Data Systems Working Group Wilmington, DE October 20-22, 2009

  2. MPAR Working Group – Disposition of 2008 Action Items Accommodate and support the MEaSUREs projects. • 2008-1: Kevin Murphy – produce a write-up describing how EMS team can assist new MEaSUREs projects develop their websites and facilitate their eventual migration to the EMS. • Disposition: Closed. Focus was on reporting of users by class; idea of having projects provide logs to ESDIS for that purpose was dropped to respect projects’ privacy concerns. • 2008-2: Kevin Murphy to investigate tools and techniques that could be supplied to projects to enable compilation of user class counts from log files. • Disposition: Closed. Addressed by April 10 paper “Metrics Collection from MEaSUREs Projects” provided to projects, which included list of tools. • 2008-3: Rama and Paul Davis to organize telecons with MEaSUREs projects to discuss changes / additions needed to MPARWG metrics to meet their needs, and develop recommendations as needed; e.g.: • Common approach to characterizing level of maturity (e.g., beta, provisional, validated) of science products as they are developed and refined. • A quality metric to be associated with product types that would enable tracking of progress with each type. • Disposition: Closed. Telecon held on October 6, 2009. Results will be discussed later in this meeting.

  3. MPAR Working Group – Disposition of 2008 Action Items Develop approaches to improve support to NASA HQ – Martha and program scientists • 2008-4: Paul Davis, Rama, Randy Barth to implement change of Impact Metrics format to Powerpoint, per Frank Lindsay’s suggestion. • Paul Davis to propose a new Impact Metric PPT format and create examples for review (image, bullet notes, more text in notes). • Rama to circulate draft PPT IM’s to MPARWG for review and comments, then coordinate review by NASA HQ. • Randy Barth to implement IM as PPT change to EMT. • Disposition: Remains open. E-Books quad chart format being considered. • 2008-5: Rama to encourage projects to enter Impact Metrics. • Disposition: Closed. Rama encourages projects every month to enter Impact Metrics and he will continue to do so. • 2008-6: Rama to ask Martha Maiden / Frank Lindsay which user categories they need metric 2 counts for (e.g. other US agencies, foreign?). • Disposition : Closed. HQ response was to leave metric 2 as is.

  4. MPAR Working Group – Disposition of 2008 Action Items Respond to Martha’s questions • 2008-7: Greg to survey REASoN and ACCESS projects: • How are the projects using MPARWG metrics internally – what have they learned from these metrics that they wouldn’t have known otherwise? • What other metrics do projects use internally and how? • What lessons learned would projects offer from their experience with MPARWG metrics? • Do projects have a concern about providing log files (with IP addresses) to NASA (EMS) for extraction of metric 2 user class counts? • Do projects intend to define and provide metrics other than the required metrics proactively? • Disposition: Closed. Survey completed in January 2009, results will be discussed later in this meeting. • 2008-8: Rama and Paul Davis – Develop response to Martha’s four questions. • Greg can prepare a starting draft based on information in hand and MPARWG discussion. Work in results from project survey. • Disposition: Closed. Response provided to Martha Maiden, NASA HQ, on April 13, 2009. The response will be discussed later in this meeting.

More Related