ARCSS Feedback Results by Question
To return to the main results page, click here.Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6
Question 1
| Are there specific issues relating to the ARCSS eNote #2 (distributed to the community on 15 April 2005) on which you would like further clarification? |
389 Anonymous
I will restrict my feedback to the section in the recent Dear Colleague letter from the AC related to the development of a new ARCSS structure. I support the concept of "communities of practice" as a new basis for structure within ARCSS and communication between ARCSS researchers and the SMO, AC, and NSF. Smaller groups working with a common SMO with centralized functions should increase efficiency. Breaking down the larger disciplinary groups should promote more dynamic and responsive collaborations, and provide a spring broad for launching new ideas. I suspect that each community of practice will be different in size, degree of organization, purpose, and level of activity, but taken together, they should provide some sort of structure that is better than no structure and more flexible than locking resources into a few moderate-size SMOs. As the details are fleshed out, I look forward to hearing more about what the AC envisages as the typical life cycle, the primary functions, and the appropriate composition of a "COP".
One concern I have about the new structure is its impact on ARCSS data management. The former SMOs provided some oversight and facilitated transferring data between PIs and the ARCSS data center. Whereas a structure based on smaller, more nimble communities has many advantages, I worry that the flow of data from PIs into data archives might suffer. Along with the development of a new structure, I encourage the AC to consider taking a stronger role in data management, particularly with respect to enforcing compliance among PIs and supervising the priorities of data mangers.
422 Anonymous
I think the ARCSS Data Management system is in flux. New structure?
Michelle Boyle
--No answer received on this question--