Rolla, Missouri, May 16-17, 1995 As this was the first meeting of the CPAC, much of the discussion at the meeting concerned organization, including drafting a charter. Highlights of the other discussions are: DODEC/IRP databases District and Field Office NWISII configuration testing DISII+ status Illustrations and publications Email archiving report Graphical User Interface (GUI) development tools in the Division We welcome comments and suggestions on any of the topics discussed, your expectations of CPAC, and most methods to communicate within the Division on CPAC responsibilities. Our thanks to Graig McHendrie for preparing these minutes. Kathy D. Peter, Chair ************************************************************************ [Note: town meeting minutes have been extracted to the town meeting repository.] CPAC Meeting, Missouri District Tuesday afternoon, 5/16/95, In attendance: Gloria Stiltner, Verne Schneider, Bill Carswell, Tom Yorke, Alan Lumb, Isabelle HalleydesFontaines, Pete Rogerson, Dave Shultz, Arlen Harbaugh, Janice Ward, Hal Mattraw, Kathy Peter, Jon Scott, Jon Nowlin, Sharon Kuhnlein, Kevin Oberg, Jerad Bales, Richard Hollway, Steve Brady, Graig McHendrie, Greg Allord Absent: Cheryl Nelson Summary of reactions to the town meeting: users are frustrated by the different platforms and the lack of solid information about using all the applications available to them and required to get their job done. Given the size of the Missouri program, it has an impressive investment in computer technology. That, plus the District's management philosophy of accommodating users' computational needs, seem to have created a reasonably satisfied user community. (Not to say there aren't problems - see description of town meeting.) Though there is frustration with multiple platforms it is a strength too - in that it provides the users with the ability to employ best-in-class applications and it will help CPAC in benchmarking for the Division computer model. The input from the Independence FO was helpful and well organized. The advance coordination for this town meeting was weak because there wasn't an RCS from SE Region on the committee to take that role. Prior to the next town meeting that role must be identified. Action: Kathy - Before the next town meeting, we should suggest that the users get together in small groups and discuss their issues. We could provide some pump-priming questions if needed. A CPAC member must be assigned to coordinate with the users at the meeting site. The diagrams of systems and system relationships prepared by Gabe Newman were very useful. It would be good to have such a diagram if the district already has it. There is fundamental confusion about reports and illustrators guidelines. The Division has a significant problem in moving graphics from the author through to the final version in the report. Our current mix of software does not provide for easy import across all packages and sites that allow users to operate beyond this mix pay an even greater price in data portability. The software mix is killing hydrologists' productivity and is beyond the current capability of many of our illustrators. We need much better guidelines on acceptable graphics and reports formats so the authors can do it right the first time. CPAC Charter: The group brainstormed and wrote items on several flip charts, which were then digested by a small group that night into a draft outline for a charter. The next day, this draft was presented to the group for additional comment. Some comments were added to the charter and ... Action: members should send comments to Hal by end of the week. Hal will turn it into a fleshed-out document within a month. He will circulate and give 2 weeks for comments back. A completed draft will be presented at the next meeting. A few definitional highlights from this part of the meeting are: - Sub-groups formed for specific action tasks will consist of both members of CPAC and others. - CPAC has authority to make decisions and implement them as long as it does not involve significant re-allocation of resources. Otherwise, CPAC acts as advisor to Senior Staff. Meeting ground rules: - Strive for consensus but when necessary, actions will be passed by a a 75% or greater vote. - At least 17 members must be able to attend a meeting for it to take place. Members must notify the chair at least one week in advance if they cannot attend. The meeting will be rescheduled if, one week prior to the meeting, it becomes apparent that at least 17 members cannot attend. If meeting attendance drops below 17 because of last minute, emergency cancellations, the meeting will still take place and will be considered an official meeting. - Stick to agenda. - Listen - Stay focused - No side conversations - Honor time commitment - Be brief: use e-mail to develop topics for agenda - Represent and communicate with the organization - Team members are equal - Absent members abide by team decisions - No substitutions, i.e., an absent member may not send a representative - No retribution - No cheap shots - Respect confidentiality of selected discussions - Get to meeting on time and return from breaks on time. - Minutes will be reviewed by CPAC, the Chair will send a copy of the minutes to the Senior Staff, all District Chiefs and all Site Administrators, and the minutes will be released for public distribution. - A WWW page structure will be established for CPAC information, including the minutes. Action: Graig - If a member is part of a sub-group when that member's rotation period on CPAC ends, the person will continue as a member of the sub-group but will drop as a CPAC member. - Rotational members can be re-appointed to another term. - The members will be appointed according to the following table: Chief, NWIS Chief of Section Chief, DIS Chief of Section Chief, AIS Chief of Section HIF Representative Named by HIF NRP Representative Named by NRP NAWQA Representative Named by NAWQA NWQL Representative Named by NWQL Discipline office Representative Named by Discipline Offices District Chief, NR Named by Regional Hydrologist District Chief, SR Named by Regional Hydrologist District Chief, CR Named by Regional Hydrologist District Chief, WR Named by Regional Hydrologist Water Info Representative Named by ACH for Water Info Liaison ACH for Technical Support Liaison A Regional Hydrologist Administrative Officer Consensus by Regional Hydrologists Data Chief Consensus by Regional Hydrologists Section/Project Chief Consensus by Regional Hydrologists System Administrator Consensus by Regional Hydrologists Data Base Administrator Consensus by Regional Hydrologists Regional Computer Specialist Consensus by Regional Hydrologists - If a person changes jobs within WRD, the slot will be filled immediately unless the job change is to a similar position in a different location, such as staying a Data Section Chief but in two different districts. However, a District Chief who changes regions but remains a District Chief will be replaced immediately in order to maintain the regional representation. - The minute taker for the next meeting will be a volunteer and will be identified at the end of each meeting. - The committee will schedule its next meeting(s) at the end of each meeting; initially there will be at least four meetings a year. - The chair must be selected from the rotating member pool; the chair will serve for one year; ideally the chair will be a person in the last year of their term, but certainly not the first year. - If the chair cannot attend a meeting, the chair will select a replacement for that meeting. - The chair will represent the committee to the Senior Staff on major items, otherwise the two Liaison members will represent CPAC to Senior Staff. The decision to send the Chair to the next Senior Staff meeting will be made by CPAC on a meeting-by-meeting basis. Selection of Chair: Kathy Peter was selected as Chair. DODEC/IRP database issue: Though it would perhaps be desirable to merge DODEC data elements into the NWIS II tables, that cannot be done until after the first release of NWIS II is up and running. There is also a considerable lead time required for changing the NWIS data structure. Therefore ... Recommendation: managers for the DODEC effort must plan to continue to maintain DODEC databases in their current form for at least a year. Action: Tom Yorke will prepare a list of questions/issues that must be addressed by DODEC in evaluating its merger into NWIS II. Action: Pete Rogerson will coordinate that evaluation effort. The evaluation should be prepared along the "Must Know" format presented below. CPAC meeting continued, Wednesday, 5/17. Introduced three guests from NMD: Brent Lowell, Phyllis Thompson, Kathy Kerns Brief discussion of CDP: Action: Bill Carswell will bring it up at the next Human Resources meeting. Action: CPAC members with comments should send them to Bill. District and Field Office NWIS configuration testing: there will be a one week testing of Ingres/NWIS servers at the DG office in Westborough MA in August. Testing will include 6220, 8500, and 9500 in various memory and cpu configurations. Field testing - DG 300 and maybe one x-term and 530 with x-terms. No present plans for testing asynch x-terms until beta sites. Some remote office testing will be done with alpha testing, but mostly with beta sites. Testing plan calls for using the OK database. Is that a large enough database to truly test it? A constraint is just the amount of time there is for the testing and how long it takes to load the database. Perhaps creating tar images of the database for fast installation could allow the use of a larger database? It's critical that districts understand the need for buying at least a bare-bones 8500 or 9500 system before the DG contract expires. All the details involved in a decision for an individual site cannot be placed in a memo. Districts must work with their Regional Computer Specialists in making these decisions. RCSs need to make a renewed effort to talk with each district about these issues. Recommendation: more extensive testing of field office configurations should be conducted during the alpha test. Action: within 2-4 weeks, each RCS must contact each of their districts to discuss and assess what additional computer resources will be needed for NWIS II. Adjunct office issue: tabled to next meeting. DISII+ status: handout distributed which parallels status updates sent out to WRD by email. All contracts will go through 2/98. DISII+ RAID devices are for higher-end units than Clariion. NMD has some performance statistics on Clariion. (Check with John Varndel and Ken Price in Denver). Note: there are savings beyond just the procurement savings in doing these large contracts. We achieve savings and increased efficiencies in terms of installation, maintenance, operation, and testing against OS and application upgrades. Illustrations and publications report: initial meeting of the DISII+ illustrators group was fraught with problems on agreeing just what illustrators did and what hardware and software requirements were. Did create a functional statement for an illustrator's package and did create and distribute a summary of the hardware and software used by all district reports sections. Not much has happened since then. Terry Reinitz got diverted off to the fact sheets for several months. Colorado District has put out an 82 page document called "Data Presentation - Hardware/Software Compatibility Report and Help Guide" with an emphasis on FrameMaker and Adobe Illustrator. The document does have parts that are specific to the CO district. There are currently two somewhat over-lapping groups acting in this area. The original illustrators group formed as part of DISII+ and a newer reports group chartered by Jim Biesecker. There are too many mixed signals about reports issues and policies going out to the districts. There are pubs issues such as graphics libraries, printing on demand that will significantly impact computer resources in the Division. Recommendation: Colorado folks should issue their report in draft form to each district as soon as possible. Districts are desperate for this information. The report can then be edited and refined as needed for more general consumption. Update on 5/23 per Gloria: CO will make this document available via the Web as soon as possible. Action: Greg Allord, Gloria, and Verne continue their discussions with Jim Biesecker on the need to better consolidate efforts of the DIS and Publications groups and committees, perhaps even merging the existing two committees into one. Email archiving report: charter has been proposed along with subgroup membership. Charter was approved. Action: Isabelle should notify the subgroup that this is a high-priority issue and requested to supply us with a timeline and workplan within a month. Defining a process for CPAC Planning: Past Lessons Learned -------------------------------- ------------------------------------- parochialism limited broad CPAC is a good venue; it has broad planning representation, senior staff, fits with ACHTS reorg Technological changes Outdate plans Plans must be revised Devalue contracts Big contracts - long lead times, outdate technology Never enough time to plan Must define a process for planning Teams are helpful Issues often revisited w/ Revisiting is not evil, it is some- different outcome times necessary Piecemeal decisions made as May be a warning that plans need reaction to problems revisiting Handling single issues leads Need to quantify resource allocations to lack of prioritization Must know: -Resources by function for prioritization -Total resources to adjust to declining budgets -Resources required by agenda proposals -Problem id -Approach -Resources needed -Schedule -Implementation plan -Long-term support and training needed -Benefits -Alternatives considered, including no action Plan should ask/answer: where are the resources resources by function (to aid prioritization) total resources (to adjust budgets) what functions require automation what technologies are appropriate where are the big payoffs Richard comment on futures planning by other companies: most only plan in the 1-2 year time frame, a few go out many years, some only look at the next quarter. Generally, the older the company and the more legacy systems on hand, the more long-range planning done. Bill C on strategic planning: it's a demanding process; the most that can be done at any one time is about 3 days; small groups work better; an implementation plan is critical; good way to bring people together. Provides road map for moving forward. Colorado District has had good experience with strategic planning. NAWQA and LAB experience shows it's critical that any strategic plan must be constantly revisited in order to keep it current. Feed-back loops must be established and verified to be functioning. AIS has profited from having a comprehensive plan, but it too should have been revisited more often and more thoroughly. Revisiting on an annual basis must be built in to the plan. In addition to the "Must Know" list above, we must have a definition of what is the purpose of computing in the Division and the overall corporate computing model. The need for deciding about a DIS III contract in spring of 1996 is one time constraint for the strategic planning process. There are several strategic plans in existence (NE Region, districts) that we should be referencing to glean the computational implications of their visions. Recommendation: we will go through a formal strategic planning process with professional assistance. Recommendation: formation of a subgroup to examine existing strategic plans, summarize computer implications, report back to group, and identify an outside resource facilitate the process. Action: Sharon K. and Bill C. will present to the group info on potential facilitators by 5/30. Action: Gloria, Graig, Steve, Jerad will gather information for a strategic plan synopsis by June 16th. Action: Jon Scott will take the lead on refining the "Must Know" list by the next meeting. Action: Members send their comments to Jon by June 1. Developing WRD's Living Computer Model The Division spends annually Prime maint $1.5M Telecom $2.0M DG sftw $0.64M DG hdw $2.0M WRD has spent $44M on DG contract. PCs and Macs are being purchased on a regular basis. Why? PCs and Macs are bought and used for: modeling, instrumentation, compatibility with cooperators, platform for desirable software, use in field and while traveling. What are the short-term things that we can do to help computing in the field while we take longer to address the long-term issues, e.g., develop a living computer model and strategic plan for the Division? Cost factors must be a part of the model. Action: Susan Trapanese, Jeff Miller, Merritt Blalock, and Graig McHendrie will continue to explore the idea of MS-Windows/DOS applications server for the network that would serve the applications to an X device. Update by Gloria on 5/23: The DIS Office will obtain an NT server and start to explore Windd and WABI. GUI development tools in the Division - currently almost all of our WRD scientific applications software is character based. Users, both within and outside the USGS, are increasingly demanding a graphical user interface for applications software. There are examples of our software having been enhanced by outsiders with a GUI and we no longer have control or influence over the program content. NMD has considerable experience in programming with GUIs; NMD people in Rolla and Sioux Falls could be used in a GUI evaluation process. Recommendation: the gui issue should be addressed and formatted along the lines of the "Must Know" outline above. Action: a subgroup of HASS, NWIS, AIS, DIS, Discipline Offices and some NMD folks will evaluate GUIs. Alan Lumb will chair. Will present their results in the "Must Know" form for the next meeting. Collection of Information About Division Computer Expenses Action: Members should review the questionnaire sent out with the last minutes and comments returned to Kathy within a month. Minute taker next meeting: Gloria Next Meetings: Sometime week June 27-29, Denver, Kathy will make arrangements. Emphasis will be development of a strategic plan. September 6-7, at NWIS alpha test site November 14-16, Las Vegas Emphasis will be development of a strategic plan. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Current membership: Chief, Hydrologic Analysis Support Section Alan Lumb HQ Chief, National Water Information System Tom Yorke HQ Chief, Distributed Information System Gloria Stiltner HQ Chief, Branch of Admin Mgmt Systems I. HalleydesFontaines HQ National Water Quality Laboratory Pete Rogerson HQ Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility Cheryl Nelson HQ *National Research Program Dave Shultz HQ *Discipline office Arlen Harbaugh HQ *District Chief Janice Ward NR *District Chief Hal Mattraw SR *District Chief Kathy Peter CR *District Chief Jon Nowlin WR *Water Information To Be Named HQ *National Water Quality Assessment Jon Scott CR *Senior Staff Liaison Bill Carswell NR Senior Staff Liaison Verne Schneider HQ *System Administrator Richard Hollway WR *Data Base Administrator Steve Brady CR *Regional Computer Specialist Graig McHendrie WR * members that will rotate Summary of recommendations: Recommendation: Managers for the DODEC effort must plan to continue to maintain DODEC databases in their current form for at least a year. Recommendation: More extensive testing of field office configurations should be conducted during the alpha test of NWISII. Recommendation: Colorado District has put out an 82-page document called "Data Presentation - Hardware/Software Compatibility Report and Help Guide" with an emphasis on FrameMaker and Adobe Illustrator. Colorado should issue their report on report preparation in draft form to each district as soon as possible. Districts are desperate for this information. The report can then be edited and refined as needed for more general consumption. Recommendation: CPAC will go through a formal strategic planning process with professional assistance. Recommendation: Form a subgroup of CPAC to examine existing strategic plans, summarize computer implications, report back to group, and identify an outside resource facilitate the process. Recommendation: The GUI issue should be addressed and formatted along the lines of the "Must Know" outline above. Summary of action items: Comment: the MO district has installed Corel and Illustrator on a networked Pentium system to provide better service for that capability. Action: Graig should talk with Gabe about the details on this. Comment from Independence: AIS report processing needs to be speeded up. A task that took just a few minutes took more than an hour from Independence. Connection is currently over a 19.2 line but will soon be upgraded to 56. Action: Steve Brady should be provided more details and he will look in to it. Action: Jim Fulton needs to get details on G2 problems in Missouri and make sure they are addressed by the new release. Action: Terry Reinitz needs to check on the Frame template issues and make sure they are covered by releases of new templates expected mid-summer. Q: what is being done about standardizing on AMLs, marker and symbol sets for meeting publication standards? A: A lot has been done locally but little has been captured and standardized. This is an issue that CPAC should address. Action: Gloria Stiltner will have Doug Nebert follow up on this item. Action: Kathy - Before the next town meeting, we should suggest that the users get together in small groups and discuss their issues. We could provide some pump-priming questions if needed. A CPAC member must be assigned to coordinate with the users at the meeting site. Action: Members should send comments on charter to Hal by end of the week. Hal will turn it into a fleshed-out document within a month. He will circulate and give 2 weeks for comments back. A completed draft will be presented at the next meeting. Action: Graig - A WWW page structure will be established for CPAC information, including the minutes. Action: Tom Yorke will prepare a list of questions/issues that must be addressed by DODEC in evaluating its merger into NWIS II. Action: Pete Rogerson will coordinate that DODEC evaluation effort. The evaluation should be prepared along the "Must Know" format presented above. Action: Bill Carswell will bring up CDPs at the next Human Resources meeting. Action: CPAC members with comments on CDPs should send them to Bill. Action: Within 2-4 weeks, each Regional Computer Specialist must contact each of their districts to discuss and assess what additional computer resources will be needed for NWIS II. Action: Greg Allord, Gloria, and Verne continue their discussions with Jim Biesecker on the need to better consolidate efforts of the DIS and Publications groups and committees, perhaps even merging the existing two committees into one. Action: Isabelle should notify the Email archiving subgroup that this is a high-priority issue and requested to supply us with a timeline and workplan within a month. Action: Sharon K. and Bill C. will present to the group info on potential strategic planning facilitators by 5/30. Action: Gloria, Graig, Steve, Jerad will gather information for a strategic plan synopsis by June 16th. Action: Jon Scott will take the lead on refining the "Must Know" list by the next meeting. Action: Members send their comments to Jon by June 1. Action: Susan Trapanese, Jeff Miller, Merritt Blalock, and Graig McHendrie will continue to explore the idea of MS-Windows/DOS applications server for the network that would serve the applications to an X device. Action: a subgroup of HASS, NWIS, AIS, DIS, Discipline Offices and some NMD folks will evaluate GUIs. Alan Lumb will chair. Will present their results in the "Must Know" form for the next meeting. Action: Members should review the questionnaire sent out with the last minutes and comments returned to Kathy within a month. Minute taker next meeting: Gloria