15–16 October, 2001
Discussion:
There are three new important clauses in the IRIS-NSF Cooperative Agreement, one relating directly to the GSN; a review of GSN in next 2 years. The GSN review committee will be created by IRIS EXCOM The President poses the following broad-issue questions for the review:
- What are the long-term goals for the GSN?
- What are the goals of sustaining the GSN?
- Do we want to be more proactive in geophysical observatories, ocean interactions?
- IRIS USGS Do we want to continue old interactions and develop fresh interactions (ANSS).
- IRIS/IDA Does the GSN SC endorse the new MOU?
- There is also the question of the whole international policy regarding data release.
- What basis will we make for the IRIS proposal 5 years from now?
Also, this is an opportunity to look at the future of the GSN and hopefully ensure the long-term survivability of the GSN. The President asked for the GSN SCs input on the types of people to be on the review committee.
Action:
GSN review recommendations. The GSN SC, in consultation with IRIS, envisioned a review committee that would be made up of people independent of current operations, but the IRIS GSN SC and operators would have full opportunity to provide written material and witness testimony to the committee. The GSN SC would like the committee to include people from outside organizations, such as FDSN, AFTAC, JOI, NCAR, USRA, and operations research specialists, such as from Harvard or MIT business schools.
Action:
GSN/NSN telemetry installations. Rhett requested as an action item that the GSN be updated by USGS on the progress for continuous NSN telemetry links at GSN sites in the conterminous US, and offered help in getting it done.Suggestion:
The GSN SC felt that there should be a flag when people request data from the DMC, so that users will get information on the MK7 problem and the state of the repair.
Information:
IRIS/USGS: The overall network average uptime is 77%, with the average at telemetered stations being 87% and at non-telemetered stations being 62%. Telemetry seems to help improve uptime, since it helps to identify problems quickly.Action:
IDA MK7 problem. The GSN SC also approved the EPROM fix of the MK7 problem.
Action:
IRIS/IGPP MOU. The GSN SC felt that IRIS should be in a position to say what equipment goes in GSN stations. We therefore endorsed the first version of the IRIS/IGPP MOU, written by Anne Meltzer, with the sentence "IRIS designates the equipment and software used in the GSN." There were concerns that the alternative wording "IRIS specifies equipmentI" might be confused with "specification." No other issues regarding the IRIS/USGS or IRIS/IDA MOUs were raised by the GSN SC.
Action:
IMS Interactions. The GSN SC recommended that the plan to proceed with connecting the USGS/GSN stations to the GCI be expedited and that IRIS should take the lead in working with IDA and IMS to connect the IDA stations to the GCI using the same method as the USGS.
Action:
IDA MK8. There were two parts to this resolution. 1) The GSN SC unanimously resolved to start work on specifications and requirements for a new generation of instrumentation for the GSN and to start the process of RFP to achieve this. 2) The GSN SC did not endorse moving to any new data acquisition systems for the GSN until the RFP process has been completed.Action:
IDA proposal. The GSN SC requested a proposal for the operation of the IDA network for the next 8 months that is basically informed by and responsive to the GSN resolutions.
Information:
Site carryover funds. For the memory of the GSN SC committee, IRIS/IDA site preparation funds are no longer carryover funds from the old subaward.
Action:
A new committee was formed to put together the specifications for a new generation of instrumentation for the GSN, including the sensor, DAS, and recording system. Thorne Lay agreed to chair the committee, and Bob Hutt, Jon Berger, and Rhett Butler also agreed to serve on the committee. (Later, Ray Buland, Goran Ekstrom and Barbara Romanowicz were added.)
