Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Good morning. Or Good afternoon, depending where you may be. This is the geo-open science, ecosystem solicitation webinar We're going to wait just a couple of minutes until the number of attendees in the room plateau, and then we'll get started soon.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Actually, it looks like we've achieved critical mass on the number of people in the zoom room. So I think we'll just go ahead and get started here.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So yeah, good afternoon or good morning, depending on where you may be located again. This is a webinar for the geoscience as open science, ecosystem or geo-os for short.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): This is for program solicitation number nsf twenty three minus five hundred and thirty, four, with a deadline of March, the sixteenth, two thousand and twenty three. And please note that this Webinar is being recorded, and will be posted next week, probably for those who are interested. So my name is Raleigh Martin. I'm. A program officer in Earth Science Division of the director for geoscience at Msf.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So today this program Webinar will be presented by me and my colleague, Allen Pope, who is in the office of polar programs In addition, program officers from across the Geoscience Directorate and the Oxford and and Cyber infrastructure are managing the geoc program, and their names are listed here.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So in next slides.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Ok, so as noted in the opening, this webinar is being recorded. The recording and slides will be posted in the coming days on the geo-oose program page, and as noted in the bottom right of the slide. Today's webinar will provide an overview of the G ose program
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): highlight some key points for proposal, preparation, and then address some other considerations for you to pay attention to, and then we will allow ample time for General Q. And A.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So for any questions not addressed today for questions that are kind of specific to your own proposal under preparation. Please feel free to contact any of the cognizant program officers who are listed on the G Ose program page
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): next slide.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Okay. So before diving into the content of the presentation, I just wanted to provide a few logistical points. This is a zoom Webinar and all attendees are muted with their webcams automatically disabled.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): If you require closed captioning, please click the live transcript button on zoom, which is shown in this image at any time you may submit questions using the Q and a feature on zoom.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): And if you would like your questions to be sent anonymously. Please just make sure to click the send anonymously button when submitting your question. Otherwise, when your question has been answered, Your identity of the questioner will be revealed to all attendees next slide.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So now i'm going to transition into providing an overview of the Geo. Osc. Program. First i'll cover some key motivating drivers of the Geos solicitation. Then I will talk about the overarching vision and priorities for the program.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Um. Then I will talk about the scope of scientific domains that are appropriate for Geo-sc. Proposal submissions and I will describe the program tracks that are available for proposals. And Then, finally, I will clarify how the Geo. Osc. Program relates to other funding opportunities at N. As F. And beyond,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): and then I will hand it over to allen who will talk more specifically about proposal preparation guidelines a next slide
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): so for motivation, as you may have heard the White House recently declared two thousand and twenty-three as the year of open science, and many Federal agencies are participating, including Nsf.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Along with this There are several other specific motivators for this geo- Osc. Program that I wanted to mention, and i'll just note that these are also highlighted in the introductory text of the Geo. Osc. Solicitation.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So first last year the National Academies of Science, engineering, and Medicine published a report on next generation or system science,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): and this report identified a critical need for integrated approaches to understanding interconnected components of the Earth system. And as pointed out in the report, there are grand challenged research questions of a system, science that require interdisciplinary connections that depend on a robust cyber infrastructure and a culture of collaboration.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So another motivator is last year the White House office of science and technology policy Ostp.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): It has been steadily increasing expectations for open, equitable, trustworthy, and collaborative science, and these were articulated in the two thousand and twenty two ost from Memo, which is colloquially called the Nelson Memo, because it was authored by Ostp lead at the time Doctoral Roger Nelson.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Finally, I also want to acknowledge several Grassroots efforts that motivate this program and establish open science principles and practices. Many of these will have emerged over the last decade through the Nsf birth tube. Program.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): In addition, the the solicitation builds on emerging consensus ideas, including the fair guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship, the care principles for indigenous data governance the trust principles for digital repositories,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): and to the general ethos of reproducibility and replicability and science. Next slide.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So, in response to these motivators, the Geo. Osc. Solicitation articulates a vision, and this is verbatim from the solicitation. The division is to support sustainable and networked open science activities and capabilities
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): that foster inclusive access to data, physical collections, software, advanced computing, and other resources toward advancing research and education in the geosciences.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): And so to that end this program anticipates this vision being achieved through a variety of interrelated efforts which range from cyber infrastructure development to community and cohort building around open science practices
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): to training and workforce activities that broaden access and use of open science resources next slide.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Ok, So to achieve this vision, the geo- Osc. Solicitation articulates four major priorities, first, to improve the openness and value of cyber infrastructure resources for geoscientists;
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): second, to democratize access to these ci capabilities with an emphasis on cloud-based approaches third to develop the capacity of geoscientists to operate with an ecosystem of open science, resources, and forth to advance the realization of open science principles in the geosciences.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So we anticipate that Geo. Osc. Proposal. Submissions will respond across the spectrum of priority areas next slide.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Ok, So we want to make clear to proposers the scientific scope of activities that are supported by this program which is focused on the geosciences.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So in general open science activities in alignment with solicitation, guidelines should be focused on the geosciences, basically as they are defined in terms of the scope of research that supported,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): and the Nsf. Director for geosciences which includes atmospheric and geospace ocean, earth and polar sciences.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So you can get a better sense of the scope of relevant Geo programs and disciplinary areas through Nsf. Website at the link shown here next slide.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So Allen will provide more detail on this. But I wanted to highlight that this program supports two tracks of activities which are primarily distinguished by size and scale rather than specific thematic characteristics.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So track one is for earlier stage activities, such as pilot capabilities or community building. These proposals should be two years in duration with the budget of maximum, four hundred thousand dollars, and this is a total for the project. Across collaborative proposals
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): track two supports, larger scale activities toward building an ecosystem of open science resource for the geosciences proposals should be three years in duration, and project budgets can be up to roughly one point six million dollars, although we'll emphasize that the budget size should be commenced with the Scott's size and scope of efforts to be supported.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Ah, next slide.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So I know this is a dizzy slide, but I just wanted to acknowledge, after all, the solicitation name includes ecosystem
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): that Geo-ose is one among many opportunities at Nsf. And beyond to support open science, principles, and practices. I would strongly encourage you to go. We have a website for Geo. Cyber infrastructure opportunities which you can access at the Qr. Code shown on the top right to learn more about these various capabilities. So i'm not going to go through all of these. But I wanted to just briefly highlight a few classes of opportunities that are complementary to geoc
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): these include Geos division-specific support programs They include opportunities through our Nsf. Office of advanced cyber infrastructure. They include nsf-wide initiatives like the Pharaohs fair open science Rc ends
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): and they also include complementary initiatives across the Federal Government. So, for example, we're well aware of the great work that's going on at Nasa through their transformed open science initiative.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): We also acknowledge that There are many other partners that can be important in this area, including industry, international collaboration, and Grassroots efforts.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So with that, I think i'm going to hand it over to Allen.
Allen Pope (he/him): Thanks, Raleigh and Hi, everyone. So i'm going to tell you a little bit about
Allen Pope (he/him): the proposal preparation process, and then some other considerations and resources as you're putting together your potential proposal, and then we'll get to ample time for Q and A. As as well,
Allen Pope (he/him): and
Allen Pope (he/him): so moving on. So submission eligibility, who is eligible, specific, so eligible organizations to submit proposals are institutions of higher education,
Allen Pope (he/him): non-profit, non-academic organisations, and then if there are other federal agencies, or Federally Funded research development centers please contact the program before preparing a proposal for submission. There's usually just a few more details. We need to work out. Often it's easier to partner with other submitters. We encourage partnerships between academia industry and others
Allen Pope (he/him): mechanisms for that can include sub awards or unfunded collaborations which would be documented by a letter of collaboration,
Allen Pope (he/him): something to emphasise. Here is we are focusing on institutions just in organisations, just like other solicitations. We can't tell a given researcher or a post stock at a particular institution, whether they are eligible to submit through their institution. That's an institutional level.
Allen Pope (he/him): Um: And yeah,
Allen Pope (he/him): in terms of once a proposal comes into us, and how it gets reviewed. We have Nsf. Standard merit, review criteria as well as solicitation, specific criteria. So we have the regular, broader impact and intellectual merit criteria
Allen Pope (he/him): that many of you will be familiar with. And I want to emphasize that, like all projects of Nsf, they need to address both broader impacts to the potential benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific desired societal outcomes as well as the intellectual merit. So the the potential of advanced knowledge.
Allen Pope (he/him): Now for the geo- Osc solicitation itself. We have two solicitation-specific criteria that actually line up really nicely with the name we have the Geo. And we have the open science. So there needs to be Geosciences advancement.
Allen Pope (he/him): So reviewers will be asked the question, How well do proposed activities contribute to demonstrated needs for advancing geosciences, research, and or education, as well as do the proposed activities, include broad participation of geoscientists throughout the project
Allen Pope (he/him): in terms of open science alignment, the questions reviewers will be asked, or how effective and feasible is the vision for open science, and how well do the proposed activities help the project move towards this vision.
Allen Pope (he/him): Again, there's more information in the specific requirements section of the program description than the solicitation. The
Allen Pope (he/him): there are lots and lots of resources that Nsf. Support the Nsf. Supports, so that researchers have access to the computing resources they need, regardless of which institution you may be at
Allen Pope (he/him): um. In addition to the resources themselves, there are also often advice and expertise. So people behind the compute to help connect with what you need and help identify what resources are most appropriate. I want to highlight a couple here, since we think a lot of the proposals that come into Geo-se are going to try and leverage some of these Nsf. Shared computing resources. So first we have advanced computing support available via the access program.
Allen Pope (he/him): There's high throughput computing resources available through the path, the
Allen Pope (he/him): and then there's commercial cloud computing resources available by the Cloud Bank Cloud access program. So for the latter two. I'll touch on this later. But there's some specific information in the proposal that we'll need for that as well,
Allen Pope (he/him): and you'll also want to indicate whether it's Htc. Access or cloud bank that should be included as keywords when they're supported. Again, i'll mention this, and it's in the the solicitation as well. These resources are largely freely available.
Allen Pope (he/him): The cloud computing resources they'll have to pay, or It's
Allen Pope (he/him): commercial resources have to be budgeted for um, and we'll, We'll come into this later, but they if you work through Cloud Bank, then they're not subject to overhead costs which they might be if you manage themselves them themselves.
Allen Pope (he/him): Next slide. Okay. So in terms of budget participate preparation. Rather again track. One has a maximum budget of four hundred thousand dollars, which is the sum across all collaborative proposals,
Allen Pope (he/him): one over two years, and then track two is up to one point six million across. All the collaboratives. Over three years. We expect that some costs included will be travel costs, so awardees are expected to participate in annual pi meetings to be held in Dc. Area one hundred and fifty,
Allen Pope (he/him): and you have to budget for those in your award at least one
Allen Pope (he/him): sorry at least one P. I. Per project. But collaborative projects do not need to send multiple pis or copies if you don't want to
Allen Pope (he/him): Ah! And for a cloud bank costs count towards the budget limit, but should not be listed on the Budget page. Rather they should be specified in an associated supplementary document. So you have to include the costs in the total, but they aren't listed in the in the spreadsheet.
Allen Pope (he/him): There's a lot of pieces of Nsf proposals, and so some of the other supplementary documents that we'll expect to see in. There are a personnel list. So one single list of personnel for the entire project uh, including last name. First name, affiliation uh, for everyone who's known to be involved.
Allen Pope (he/him): And obviously you don't need to include students or postdocs who are not yet identified.
Allen Pope (he/him): Um. If you have collaborative, unfunded, collaborative members, then we expect letters of collaboration to demonstrate these collaborative arrangements, but please remember that they are letters of collaboration and not letters of support. Um. So there's language in our policy procedures guideline that includes the specific language. So the collaborative arrangements themselves should be described in the proposal, while the letter just demonstrates that the collaborator is on board with what's described in
It's like South.
Allen Pope (he/him): Um! If you have a high throughput computing resources that you're requesting those should also be indicated with supplementary documents, whether it's Htc. Access or Cloud Bank cloud credits.
Allen Pope (he/him): Oh, sorry! And I should have said that generally those have for the the computing resources. It's information about the proposers, the project, and a description of the requested resources all in one place.
Allen Pope (he/him): I'm sorry about that.
Allen Pope (he/him): Uh, some other important uh proposal reminders again, this is all in the solicitation. So please read that carefully. Uh. But titles, we ask, should be proceeded with Geo. Osc. Track one or two that helps us keep track of the proposals in inside our Nsf. Systems. Um. And I also want to remind people that there is an updated proposal and a work policies and procedures Guide. Um. That is effective at the end of the month, and so will be in effect
Allen Pope (he/him): for this solicitation, and it includes some updated bio, sketch and current impending formats. Um You can find the the whole thing on the Nsf. Website. Um, but just something to be aware of. Make sure you look at ahead of time. So you're not caught on the date of the deadline, thinking that your your old Bio sketch is going to suffice.
Allen Pope (he/him): Some other considerations talk about some prospects for the geo- Osc. Program some resources for you, and then we'll move on to the Q. And A. That I'm: sure everyone is excited about
Allen Pope (he/him): so prospects for the G. Osc program. Uh we get a lot better getting a lot of questions of um, what's happening in future years, And so what we do, what we know And what we can say is that you, Osc. Um builds on Earth Cube and continues Nsf's commitment to this community into the future. Um. The program is structured such that track one projects may develop into future tractus submissions. However, we do not have specific plans for a future competition,
Allen Pope (he/him): but as always, and Nsf. Aims to be responsive to community needs community directions and priorities. You know, that gets expressed in a lot of ways, whether workshops or white papers as well as proposal pressure that comes into the program itself. So no specific plans right now. But we hope that gives you a sense of of where we're at right now
Allen Pope (he/him): in terms of additional resources again. You've probably heard program officers say this many times, but i'll say it one more time. Please read the solicitation carefully. We really try and get all of the information in there that you'll need to put together a proposal.
Allen Pope (he/him): Um. This presentation and materials will be posted on the G. Osc. Program page. But if you do have other questions, we encourage you to reach out to specific program contacts and program officers with further specific questions. Often it is helpful to us to be able to to get you the answers you want um is to provide a one pager of a summary one page of the pro the project that you're
Allen Pope (he/him): thinking about. So we have a little bit more information and can give you a well-crafted response.
Allen Pope (he/him): Now, who might, you say, are those specific program contacts to reach out to? Here we all are. It's the names that we listed on the beginning of the presentation, and we have a bunch of them online as well. I think they're turning on their cameras now, so you can see them, so I guess we'll ask people if that's okay to to give a quick pillow, turn on your mic and say, Hi and i'll call on people that I see their cameras are on. So
Allen Pope (he/him): you've met Raleigh already in the Earth sciences. And, Eva, do you want to say Hi next?
Zanzerkia, Eva E: I am Eva and Sergey,
Zanzerkia, Eva E: I mean, he his answer. Camera program Director in the division of Earth Sciences Geophysics Program.
Allen Pope (he/him): Awesome. Thank you. And Al
Alejandro Suarez: There I am Alejandra Suarez. I'm, a program director in the office of advanced cyber infrastructure
Allen Pope (he/him): and rumor is that Mark and Eric might be online, too. But i'm not sure. I see their cameras here.
Allen Pope (he/him): Well, i'll quickly say that we have Mark Stiglitz from the office of polar programs. Either he or I can respond to polar inquiries, Eric, do we? Or from the atmosphere. Geo. Spaces, and
Allen Pope (he/him): as well as Maria Womak. Sorry she's at the top of the list, and then Kevin Johnson in ocean sciences. As well make up the the working group for this solicitation. So we're going to move into. Oh, I think I see, Eric there. You might get to introduce himself.
Eric DeWeaver: Yeah, Sorry I was uh logged in as a um as a non panelist, so I guess I wasn't able to to join in um America we were. I'm here to represent the um Atmospheric and Geo. Space Sciences Division, and um, you know i'd be happy to. You know um feel any questions that that that sort of come from people who are within the research community that we phone.
Allen Pope (he/him): Awesome. Thank you, Eric, and Mark.
Marc Stieglitz: Hi um, welcome everyone. I'm Mark Stiglitz and I am a program director in the Arctic section in the Art natural scientist program.
Allen Pope (he/him): Great. Thank you. So our goal here is to make sure that you know we are real people behind these email addresses. Please do reach out to us with questions we love hearing from our potential future pi's.
Allen Pope (he/him): But we have a lot of time set aside for question and answer right now. So to ask a question. Please use the Q. And a feature that you should see in the zoom bar. You can submit questions now, and if you want to submit them anonymously you can just check check that.
Allen Pope (he/him): Send anonymously box, and we'll take them as they come in, so I think I might stop share, for right now, so you can see our faces a little bit bigger, and we'll see what questions we're getting in?
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): I can take the first question I see here, so i'm just going to read it out loud. One of the key drawbacks of earthquake is that much of its projects were more interested in building cyber infrastructure than addressing the actual needs of living, breathing geoscientists as a successor to earthquake, how will ose ensure its output will be more relevant?
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Is there a scope in Osc. Grants to do a bit more science? If only illustratively, will it be tech forward or science forward. So that's a good question. One thing i'll note is that the scope of activities that are supported through the Geoc
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): solicitation are quite broad and include cyber infrastructure development. They include community and cohort building, and they also include workforce and training type activities and and the full spectrum of activities. You know some proposals will be weighted more to one, some more for the other.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): The key thing is to be responsive to
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): both. The open science, ecosystem requirement, and the the geoscience advancement requirement when doing that. With regard to specific scientific research, Generally speaking, that is how to scope to have a full blown science project that's better submitted to our core Science programs. But it's something to discuss with us on a case by case basis. If there's a certain pilot
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): research components that are built in, you know, potentially that could be
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): appropriate.
Allen Pope (he/him): Thanks, Riley.
Allen Pope (he/him): And so I guess i'll take this next question, which is, could the scientific scope include tangentially related domains? For example, climate, smart agriculture? That's a great question. I think that in general
Allen Pope (he/him): that make a a connection to geosciences, and and we can identify fit there again. We'd encourage you to put together a one pager and reach out to the the program contact. So we can let you know specifically with what you're proposing, whether whether there's a good fit or not.
Allen Pope (he/him): And again, the goal there is to be responsive to what the community has also identified as geoscience needs as well.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): I guess i'll take that. I guess we could just go back and forth unless we get tripped up. So this next question is the three-year time span strict for track two proposals. Yes, it is
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): We chose to limit the duration of projects. This is a new program. And so we're. We're looking for shorter term projects. But we expect that you should be able to achieve a significant amount within that three-year period.
Allen Pope (he/him): So i'll answer this question. So should proposals cover more than one Ge of science discipline or can pilot proposals be focused on what community
Allen Pope (he/him): Sorry. I think. Oh, yeah, or on what community? With a possibility to involve more communities in track to.
Allen Pope (he/him): Yes, I think that depending on the exact scope of what you're proposing. It is possible to contribute to one particular geoscience community, but that we would want broad participation within that particular community,
Allen Pope (he/him): for example. And then, Yeah, I think you have the idea exactly right. Right? The idea to to go from something more focused and track one to something broader and more distributed potentially in track to. So
Allen Pope (he/him): yeah, sounds sounds good to me.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): I see a question that's potentially for Alejandro regarding sustainability. Do you want to read this off and then answer it.
Alejandro Suarez: Sure i'll. I'll read this one off so with an emphasis on sustainability. Are there any special arrangements for this program with science gateways or trusted Ci, or other sustainability, focused support, consulting groups. Any comments on budgeting for sustainability consulting activities. I think i'll start out with the last the last question there, which is, we're very open to partnerships here.
Alejandro Suarez: And as Raleigh commented early, actually, this may have been, Allen commented earlier in the slides partnering with submissions through sub award arrangements, through collaborative awards, through unfunded collaborations. Those are all appropriate. We called out some specific access to compute resources in the solicitation, but other types of collaborations with other types of nsf-supported Ci resources be a sustainability focus uba users.
Alejandro Suarez: We We welcome to here what you what you have to propose. If you have specific questions about a specific partnership that you're looking into, feel free to to reach out to me. But, in general, as long as the that the Geo-open science pieces are fulfilled there. These most of these types of partnerships would be considerable
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Thanks, Alejandro. I'll take this next one The question. Is is there an allocation of proposals that are discipline-specific and the solicitation for example a certain number of polar-focused versus atmospheric focused
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): so in general we want to see the best proposals rise to the top, and we are very interested in our mirror review process, and what we hear from our external expert reviewers,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): and how they assess the proposals against the two Standard Nsf Mirror review criteria, as well as our two solicitation-specific criteria
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): That, said you know portfolio balance across the Geosciences is a consideration we may take into account when determining the final portfolio of awards that we make. But that's not something that's predetermined. We're very much looking for the best proposals to come in and be supported.
Allen Pope (he/him): Allen, do you want to take this next question about traffic? One versus try, and you just realize It's still muted. How many years have we been on Zoom? And it's still happening? Yeah. So the question is, can we talk a little bit more about the difference between track one and track two specifically with respect to the nature of the proposed work.
Allen Pope (he/him): Um! So the long and the short of it is that the nature of the proposed work might not actually be that different. But it's the scale and level of development of it that would be different. So it's the same range of types of activities. But it's the the red,
Allen Pope (he/him): I guess. Yeah. The breadth and depth of that work that might vary between track, one and crack, two
Allen Pope (he/him): again in track one. It might be earlier stage. They might be pilot activities or community building activities that advance the vision for science versus track, two being a larger scale aimed at providing more of the ecosystem itself and more G. Osc. Resources themselves. So you might be more on the figuring things out, getting community buy in in in track one, and then deploying or refining, or
Allen Pope (he/him): up in track two.
Allen Pope (he/him): So I hope that answers the question,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Ok, so i'll take this next one, and by the way, I welcome my Geo-colouques here to chime. In, if something is not being fully answered, So the question is, would software projects fall into this program, or is the focus primarily on cyber infrastructure?
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So you know this, I guess, gets a little bit into definitions. But you're typically we view scientific software that helps to advance the needs of scientific domains to fall within the category of cyber infrastructure.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So in that sense, you know, software development type activities could potentially fit as parts of geo- Osc. Submissions.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): But again and it kind of repeating the same point, you know, it's very important that those activities are responsive to the overall goals and priorities of the the G. Osc. Program, and also that is a very clearly articulated plan to address those solicitation-specific requirements, for
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): we're networking in with the broader open science ecosystem and for advancing science and education needs in the geosciences
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): how I see your hand raised, if I may rally just to follow up on that. Because of the that the open science focus of this solicitation the questioner may wish to
Alejandro Suarez: peruse the Csi program, the Cyber infrastructure for sustained scientific innovation program which is run by the office of advance cyber infrastructure. But includes geosciences as a partner. So if something is more specific to the software development efforts within geosciences, then that may perhaps be more well suited to Csi, it's more suited to some open science activities that it perhaps might be more suited to Osc. But if you have questions about programmatic fit,
Alejandro Suarez: then feel free to contact us.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Thanks, Al: that's a really good point. I would again encourage you to go to that
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): geoci opportunities Web page where all of these opportunities are listed as noted in my part of the presentation. This program is one among many in the kind of ecosystem of support that we hope together will collectively help
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): our geoscience communities to achieve a vision of open science. And so we understand not. Everything is going to fit perfectly within this particular call, and to encourage you to look at those other opportunities.
Allen Pope (he/him): Yeah. And in a sec we'll put the Cssi link in the chat as well, so you can have that available.
Allen Pope (he/him): It's also linked from the geoci page which we linked, or a separate infrastructure opportunities. Page: that we we put in the chat earlier.
Allen Pope (he/him): Our next question asks what will be the composition of the review panel? Will this proposal be reviewed primarily by geoscientists or cyber infrastructure experts? So we don't have a panel put together yet, so we'll see who's on the panel. But in general we make sure that it's a panel with a broad, diverse range of expertise. You know the the way the question was framed was kind of putting it either as geoscientists or cyber infrastructure experts.
Allen Pope (he/him): We also like to think of that as a continuum of expertise, and often people that have an intersection of experience, or the ones who are most interested in serving on panels like this one. So we'll see um, but I wouldn't suggest that you particularly tailor any a proposal to just geoscientists, or just ci experts. You can expect proposals to be reviewed and read by a range of different people as well.
Allen Pope (he/him): Oh, an Eva, you have your hand raised.
Zanzerkia, Eva E: I'm. Just going to take this opportunity to note that if you are interested in potentially serving as a renew our panelist for us, Please shoot anyone in the Us. An email.
Allen Pope (he/him): Thank you. That's a great point,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): although i'll also add, if you are part of a submission to the program, we will not consider you as a panelist.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): But if you are doing this, and you think it's a great program. But you're not submitting in the current round. We would definitely be interested in hearing from you as a potential reviewer or a panelist,
Allen Pope (he/him): Riley, you went to the next question. Sure. So is there written guidance on spending related to international collaborations? Grants I am a part of have had varying experiences on this front. Does this require po discussion, or is there rid of guidance for this solicitation?
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So it really will depend on the nature of the international collaboration. So I would say in general, please reach out to us in advance of submission to ask your specific questions, but in general, nsf support is focused on us-based organizations. We understand that open science is an international endeavor
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): and that open-size doesn't end at the water's edge it's just kind of administratively what we are constrained to do at Nsf. And there are very clear There's some wording on this in the the proposal, and awards guide. The so I would encourage you to look at that.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): You know there are exceptional cases where funding can go to a foreign organization, but that needs to be very explicitly justified in the the proposal budget, and it's not a usual thing to occur, so I would definitely encourage you to look at the the ppg guidelines, and to talk to us in advance of submission.
Allen Pope (he/him): So our next question asks, Can you develop on Osc. Goal Number three? Strengthen the capacity of current and future zen
Allen Pope (he/him): future geoscientists to access, utilize and collaborate within the growing ecosystem of open science resources. So I want to make sure. I'm, understanding this question correctly. If the question is asking, could one do that as part of a proposal? The answer is definitely, yes. That training activities that broaden access or enhance access to what we said.
Allen Pope (he/him): Um, if the question is whether we can explain that a little bit more um, then i'll say, there's a range of different materials and resources and things that are out there that might be known only in particular niches, or might have some bar, you know, to to access, or something like that. And so activities that lower that are enhance publicity, get more people using these existing resources or put them into new geosciences. Communities would all be examples of things that might
Allen Pope (he/him): it within the scope of a geo-
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): and I'll just add one thing going back to one of the earlier questions that was comparing the current program to Earth Cube. So you know we, this solicitation is very much informed by our experience with the earthquake and other previous programs,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): and one of the things that we heard from the community was that our geoscientists needed more support to be able to use these resources that are being developed to help them to do their science and their education.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): This Geo-ose goal is very much responsive to that need that has been expressed. That we want to not only see these resources develop, but we want to see them as widely used as possible, and this includes building. The capacity of
here is, how
Allen Pope (he/him): Thanks, Rally. Do you want to take the next one?
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Sure. So the question is, Um, uh, okay. Sorry. I just moved
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Um, that's fine. Okay. So it was touched upon earlier. But do these proposals need to address scientific questions, or can the proposal be focused solely on software engineering? This is always a little bit of a sticky point, so i'm going to do my best to explain it, but i'll maybe hand it to my colleagues as well.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So it's very important that the proposal is motivated by the science. There needs to be a clear demonstration of how the open science activities will contribute in some way to allowing
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): geoscientists to advance their research and or education goals. If that is missing, then the the proposal is unlikely to farewell in the competition. That being said, we're not looking for primarily research proposals. We have plenty of other programs that support that.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So the key here is the kind of enabling function of how Are you advancing open science, resources, and activities so that they can support the broader needs of the geoscience community to do their work?
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): But I I would welcome any other of my colleagues if they want to refine on that.
Allen Pope (he/him): I think you did a great job there. Wrong? Okay, excellent.
Allen Pope (he/him): So next question is with the involvement of industry. Partners in the proposal be seen as an advantage. That's a great question, and
Allen Pope (he/him): often we think diverse teams make for strong proposals. Again, it will really depend on the specifics right? Just like any collaboration. What are the collaborative partners bringing to the team? And are they the the institutions, individuals, groups that are best placed to do so.
Allen Pope (he/him): So it's. It's probably going to be a specific question, and we'd encourage you to to send a one-pager and ask the the Congress and program officer. Um, But the the general answer is collaborative. Teams are seen as a strength. I don't know if any of the other program. Officers have other details. They would like to add to that, though.
Allen Pope (he/him): Okay? Well, this is definitely It's Yeah,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): it's definitely a question for me. Can you talk about differences between Geo-informatics and Geo-se?
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So for those of you who are not aware geo-informatics is a program in our Earth science division, and one that i'm a program officer for. So the difference is that geoformatics is focused more specifically
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): on the Earth sciences as defined by the scope of research that is supported by our Nsf. Division of Earth sciences; whereas geo-sc spans all of the geosciences which includes Earth atmosphere, ocean and polar science in addition geoinformatics is more generally
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): focused on enabling cyber infrastructure for science, research, and education, whereas geo-
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): it includes cyber infrastructure. But it's more specifically about cyber infrastructure and community building and training and workforce specifically toward advancing open science principles and practices in the geosciences.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So there's definitely differences between these two programs.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): But again, please reach out with your one-page project, Summary, and we would be happy to help steer you to whatever program may be best for your submission
Allen Pope (he/him): it's.
Allen Pope (he/him): Thank you. So Then the next question says, What criteria do we anticipate using to assess success, particularly in terms of engagement?
Allen Pope (he/him): That's a great question and a really broad question. And it's really going to depend on the project that you're submitting in particular. So it might be participants. It might be
Allen Pope (he/him): activity in a Github repo. It might be citations. It might be, you know,
Allen Pope (he/him): anything else, depending on exactly what the the sort of project is. So there's There's lots of room for a project to define what success looks like, based on what the goals of your own particular project are.
Allen Pope (he/him): And so that's probably a maddeningly vague answer. But because of the breadth of different activities that can fit within. Geo. Osc. We don't have particular metrics that we're telling you are going to define success. They really are going to be responsive to the project in particular,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): and I'll just add, and this actually applies to any Nsf proposal. We always ask our reviewers for intellectual merit and broader impacts, and any other review criteria to consider five review elements.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): And the third review element is is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities. Well reasoned, well organized, and based on a sound rationale, does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So, in a way, we're kind of putting it to you. The proposers to demonstrate to reviewers in your proposal that you have waste, that you will be assessing the success, including with regard to engagement activities.
It's.
Allen Pope (he/him): Thank you.
Allen Pope (he/him): And so the next question is, would proposals be expected to consider leveraging or contrasting against existing Earth cube tools?
Allen Pope (he/him): General. Yes, leveraging existing tools is something that we encourage. Obviously, you know, we talked about how this is building upon
Allen Pope (he/him): the legacy of earth, cube, and experience from earth cube, and so building upon earth, cube, projects and tools is something that would be great to see, and part of the reason that we another way of articulating that is, it's responsive to existing community activities needs. And so, if those are Earth cube funded things that's great. There are other community tools that are out there, you know that's also great. It doesn't just have to be Earth cube thing cyber.
Allen Pope (he/him): I see a bunch of nodding and other people that were also involved in Earth cube longer than I was, so I have been so in case there's more that other Earth cube folks want to add there. I'll pause for a second.
Allen Pope (he/him): Not specifically Earth cue. But i'll just say, you know, pay attention when preparing your proposal to the two specific requirements that are articulated in the solicitation, one of which is open science alignment, and in there it explicitly talks about
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): the need to leverage off of existing cyber infrastructure which could include Earth cube if that's appropriate, or it could be other cyber infrastructure.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So I guess I could take This is a project focusing on open data considered open science or does it have to include open software components and or have to combine the two.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So I think we we wrote the solicitation to be somewhat open-ended um. Among the things that we are interested in seeing made open include data and software. But we understand that no one project can do everything.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So The important thing is that there is a demonstration that in some way meaningful, your proposed activities would be
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): making some aspect of geoscience, research, or education open, if you choose to focus on data. That's fine. If you choose to focus on software, That's fine. If you choose to do both. That's fine. You know other aspects of openness as well are encouraged. So you know, Really, we'll just come down to your project and what you're interested in advancing.
Allen Pope (he/him): Great. Um. So we have a question clarifying. I think some of our earlier answers, I understand all, and Nsf proposals need to be driven by scientific questions in this ose call how much actual science should the proposers expect to actually conduct. For example, someone might propose to build an open database. Are they supposed to do some science with it within the scope of their ose proposal.
Allen Pope (he/him): So again, we want to make sure that these projects are scientifically motivated, but not, I guess, full on standalone research projects that sit apart from the Osc goals. So in this example, so you build the database. You might
Allen Pope (he/him): proposed within your Osc. Proposal to do some pilot studies with it, or to have a funded or unfunded collaborator to do some work with that database as demonstration cases. Some outreach work with it, but you wouldn't be required to do so. For example, if there is one,
Allen Pope (he/him): say a community, white paper, or a report that you can point to that says like this is a no need. We need this database, or there's an advisory committee that you pull together. That's going to make sure that that database is well structured, and therefore usable for science as well. So, Essentially,
Allen Pope (he/him): if you have specific proposal-specific, questions, please do reach out to us so we can. We can talk about a one pager, and what might be within or outside of scope for your specific award.
Allen Pope (he/him): I I think a short answer is,
Allen Pope (he/him): Yeah, do some science, but not too too much. That stands outside of the the Os. Evolves.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So next question I could take the introduction of solicitation, mentions, quote catalyzing the innovative uses of Ai Ml. That's artificial intelligence and machine learning. However, it is not mentioned in any part of the solicitation. Could you expand on the extent to which the use of Ml. Is allowed.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): For example, is it expected that one would use machine learning as a tool to solve a problem or research an area in geosciences.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So i'm going to attempt an answer. But i'll definitely welcome my colleagues here. So the the introduction of the solicitation is really meant to kind of provide motivation for. For why we are doing this
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): and
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): artificial intelligence and machine learning. We're just seeing an explosion of applications of this within Geosciences research, and we want to, you know, to help enable that one of the things we hear, for example, is when you're doing machine learning. You need large labeled data sets to be able to to carry out your research and making those available for researchers as important. And so, therefore, that's an example of a scientific motivator that could be
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): built into a Geo. Osc. Proposal. So with that said, You know we're not expecting
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): all proposals to to talk about Ai and machine learning, but we're also welcoming that, you know that's a mechanism or a technology that will help you to better achieve the goals of the project.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Um, Then you know by all means that that's something we would encourage you to consider. But you know kind of again repeating the mantra here, if you have a specific proposal idea, definitely encourage you to approach us early, and we're happy to to kind of get into details with you.
Allen Pope (he/him): Yeah. And i'll just bill on that. To say that
Allen Pope (he/him): just applying some existing Ai or an algorithm to a new scientific question is not going to address. It addresses the Geosciences part of Geos, but not necessarily the open science as part of Osc. And so it's important that any proposal that's going to come into geose really does address both pieces of that open and computer sciences together.
Allen Pope (he/him): Our next question is, the Open Government Data Act Doesn't require exclusivity, that is, and Nsf. Could make data available in some industry standard formats as long as it has provided that data in open formats as well. Does Nsf. Intend to keep that.
Allen Pope (he/him): Excuse me to keep that possibility open. In the event, some commercial or industry standards proved to be useful in reaching their end users
Allen Pope (he/him): um. So I guess two things that i'll emphasize here is that Nsf: Isn't: technically the one making data available. We have a data policy, and researchers are are sharing data or code by ah potentially and as step-supported repositories. But we aren't the ones doing the sharing in particular in case that distinction matters, and the reason I also say that is it means it's up to you as pis or proposers, to decide what the best formats are.
Allen Pope (he/him): You know we encourage open formats and non-proprietary formats. But there are certainly examples where proprietary formats are the way that data are going to be most used, you know. So I see data sets that come in and say that they're being shared through the Arctic data center in Matlab format, and then they might also be shared in an open format as well, and they choose to share both, because that's how it's going to be most useful by the rest of their community.
Allen Pope (he/him): That's a really small example to say that. Yep. Share it multiple ways. That's great,
Allen Pope (he/him): Raleigh. Do you want to take the next one?
Allen Pope (he/him): I hope you're muted? I also I just realized that will the program allow funding to be directed to other Us agencies, for example, Noaa, which support geoscientific data servers but tend to be too short staff to respond to open. Science needs
Allen Pope (he/him): um and Riley. You might take the next question with them, and then the next one as well is, Can you speak more to the potential for collaborative rules between an academic institution and another Federal agency. So this is a kind of a general question about eligibility. The solicitation lists three classes of
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): organizations that are eligible to submit institutions of higher education, that is, basically universities, nonprofits, and then federal agencies or ffrdcs federally funded research and development centers for that last class of submitters, Federal agencies, or ffrdcs,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): that the solicitation explicitly asks that you reach out to one of us in advance of submission, and so
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): we would definitely advise you to do that, and then we'll provide you a response kind of on a case by case basis. But in general like. I know Federal agencies Typically, you cannot request personnel costs for for Federal employees and proposals, but there are sometimes ways that they can engage in other ways, including
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): via underfunded collaborations or funding for costs other than personnel. But again, those are very much case-by-case determinations, and so we would definitely encourage you to reach out to us in advance
Allen Pope (he/him): great. So our next question is, does making software public available imply that some software in use for and Nsf scientific computing and sharing infrastructure would not make all these policies, as it is not released or potentially internal to, and so use of commercial software as Nsf scientific infrastructure is in conformance with this policy.
Allen Pope (he/him): So i'll take this in a couple of different directions, one to say that if Pi is, or say creating a software we expect, or a code, You know, we expect those to be shared as products that come out of a particular project
Allen Pope (he/him): that's not to say that other commercial software might not be used as part of a scientific workflow. Right? A lot of the shared computing resources will also have proprietary licenses for particular packages on them, and so there might be, you know, the perfect right
Allen Pope (he/him): for a particular piece of a scientific workflow, and that's something that we have to take on a case by case basis, and we try and make things as open as possible. The Nsf. Funded development. Parts of it
Allen Pope (he/him): would be expected to be open and shared. But it might not be one hundred percent of the process. That's what we're working towards, but we also don't want to let good be the end. We're perfect to be the enemy of good along the way. And so that's something that you could explain in a proposal. You know we're working on this piece of opening up this scientific workflow, for example, as much as you might want to make the whole workflow open. Maybe that's not something that can happen within the scope of one,
Allen Pope (he/him): a track, one award, for example. Maybe that's the goal of your track to a work that you're working towards. Who knows? So there are a lot of hypotheticals in there. I hope? I answer the question. You can clarify it with another question, and definitely
Allen Pope (he/him): invite my other Nsf. Colleagues to comment further. If you have seen other examples or have other takes on that,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): I guess just a general comment, which is that you know. Keep in mind that your proposal is going to be judged, in a sense, by a jury of your peers, by other geoscientists, by other cyber infrastructure experts by others who we deem have the expertise to
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): review the proposal. And so they're in a sense going to be looking at what you put forward and making a judgment call and saying within the context of what you're seeking to do Is this an activity that is furthering toward the goal of more open science than the geosciences or not.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): So you know, in many of these cases there's not a clear cut Answer. We can provide you in advance. It's on you to articulate
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): what it is you're hoping to do, and how this will advance the vision for geoscience or for open science. And, in fact, we encourage you to explicitly define in your proposal what you mean by open science. It's actually written in the solicitation. But that's something we're hoping that folks can do, because there's not necessarily,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): You know, a clear-cut definition that everyone agrees upon for what exactly it means to have open science
Allen Pope (he/him): it's rally.
Allen Pope (he/him): I wonder if Eric might be best placed to answer this next question actually, which is, is archiving our data on the Noaa website. Considered as open science.
Eric DeWeaver: I wish I knew the answer actually
Eric DeWeaver: not too familiar with with uh uh options for it to know upside. I I believe it is true, though, isn't it? Um, I guess, kicking it back to your domain. That um the uh that Noah maintains a repository for ice scores,
Allen Pope (he/him): not a scores in particular, but they do have some data repositories. I see Eva has her hand raised, and so it might have a general answer. We'll see,
Zanzerkia, Eva E: Yeah, this is more general. So I I I turn it back to those view in in um programs that um have scientific relationships with Noah. But as Raleigh just said, you know part of the goal of the solicitation is to understand what open science means for different domains. And if you have your
scientific area
Zanzerkia, Eva E: as a partnership or relationship with another Federal agencies mission. So in my domain of geophysics we often work um. We use data across the boundaries with Usgs and Nasa, and they do have. They have both um initiatives on their own for open science, but they also have repositories that broadly serve the scientific community. So if you are looking to leverage that to make the research community that's served by Nsf
Zanzerkia, Eva E: more um conducive to open science. I think we'd welcome that what we'd be looking for again, as Raleigh said, is, Do you have a definition of what open sciences? And why is this the right definition for your community? And do you have the right partnerships in the right um usage of resources at other Federal agencies like
Eric DeWeaver: I mean, you know, i'd be happy to follow up by email, because the you know the implications of the question aren't entirely clear to me. I mean
Eric DeWeaver: the specific activity of archiving data on a website. It would not necessarily be within the scope of the solicitation. If the goal is to sort of, you know, develop side of infrastructure to facilitate the democratization of access to data um, you know it's not clear that that um
Eric DeWeaver: um, you know archiving data is is is, you know, by itself um responsive to the solicitation. Um. If, on the other hand, you know, uh, you are developing um an infrastructure whereby you know uh, certain resources that were held in our types of other agencies, or even, you know, internationally. Uh were to be made more accessible either through, you know. Um um cyber infrastructure that helps with uh
Eric DeWeaver: um, you know, identifying that data um, you know, discovering it uh things like that. And I would think that's more in the spirit of the solicitation. Um, you know. So in that sense I think it's um, you know It's It's a little bit important to kind of think about. You know. We're archiving as an activity fits in um to this to the solicitation. Um, but certainly, you know. Uh, if if
Eric DeWeaver: archiving data to know a website really does fulfill the the the you know the desired um sort of outcome of of democratizing access to to data. Then I I personally wouldn't have an objection to it, but I I think there could be some devils in the details of how we kind of think through this question.
Allen Pope (he/him): Thanks, everyone.
Allen Pope (he/him): Um, Raleigh, Do you want to take this next one?
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Sure. So Is there a specific target for the proportion of track? One versus track, two funded projects? A short answer. No, we're going to see what we get.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): See how it's reviewed. See how much money we have available to fund these projects, and then try to put together the best possible portfolio.
He's.
Allen Pope (he/him): Ah, Al, do you want to speak to Clap? Oh, sorry, Mark, Do you have a something to say? Oh, you have to leave Al Thanks for joining us, Mark. Do you want to speak to this Cloud Bank question?
Alejandro Suarez: Ah, sure. So So the question asks, Does Nsf. Cloud Bank have a way to deal with sustainability issues related to persistent data, storage and data movement costs, and the scientific community realistically expect to host large data volumes on Commercial cloud for the long term. So This is a sort of
Alejandro Suarez: bit of a nuanced question. The So the Cloud Bank
Alejandro Suarez: project is specifically allowing you to avoid some of the administrative hurdles in obtaining access to cloud resources through budgeting overheads and and other discounts. However, it does not necessarily attack, and on this question you bring up about persistent data storage available on commercial cloud. And I think this is this is also something that the devil is in the details here. But if you have large
Alejandro Suarez: data, storage needs or data accessibility challenges with whatever project that you're looking to propose. Then we very much welcome your exploration of all the types of ci and tools that could better support that
Alejandro Suarez: be it a commercial cloud obtained through Cloud Bank, or through some of our other resources, such as the the path project, for example, which has open science data infrastructure as well, and the access program also allows
Alejandro Suarez: allocation of data, storage resources in addition to compute resources. So all of these have different things. They look for different types of availability. So if you have questions about that, you can reach out directly to me. But it's, I think maybe even more helpful to reach out directly to the context within the access program or within the Path Facility Project, to
Alejandro Suarez: figure out what might be the best fit for your proposal,
Alejandro Suarez: and I see Raleigh also stands for that.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Yeah. So I agree with everything you you said how, and i'll just add. One of the things we hear about is one of the biggest costs associated with cloud is the data ingress and egress. Increasingly we're seeing
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): movement toward a paradigm where the whole workflow is actually carried out in the cloud. The data are stored there, and the processing is done there by the user and that has a double benefit of removing those ingress andgress costs, or significantly reducing them, but also potentially expanding access
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): so that more geoscientists can use those cloud-based data and cloud processing capabilities to do their scientific or to achieve their goals in those areas. So we do specifically call out cloud
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): enabled paradigms as one among the ways that you could consider achieving open science priorities, or in response to this solicitation.
Allen Pope (he/him): The only thing i'll add on top of that is that whether it's through cloud, bank, or other
Allen Pope (he/him): avenues. We have seen some examples where geoscience related data is essentially seen as enough of a common good for the platform that the Platform thinks, Oh, other people are going to want to use this data set and then want to join our platform that they end up hosting the data for free
Allen Pope (he/him): um, And so just opening that you know you'd have to work with the the Cloud Provider to discuss that. But there are examples of where geoscience data have just been stored by the platform For, free to kind of do what what Raleigh is talking about, to move that whole workflow interior to the the Cloud Provider,
Allen Pope (he/him): And
Allen Pope (he/him): is our whole list of questions? So far,
Allen Pope (he/him): I think we can give people a minute or two to see if they have any more my guesses that most people dropped off, or we saw a definite drop off after the first hour as well. But we are all available for another half hour, in case people do have more questions.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): And I guess while we're waiting to see if any other questions come in, I know Helen and I have been doing most of the talking, so if any of our colleagues from Nsf. Have any other things they wanted to add, you know, reflecting on the questions that have been asked today, and please feel free to chime in.
Allen Pope (he/him): Well, I don't see any more questions, so we might. We might call it.
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): Okay, i'm good. With that. I think we gave people a suitable amount of time for any of those burning questions, and of course we
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): you know we're here as a resource, Please don't hesitate to reach out to us um with any further questions we would definitely encourage you to do to reach out, or the earlier the better. It can take us a few days to respond to questions and to discuss,
Raleigh Martin (NSF - GEO/EAR) (he/him): and so we want to make sure to give you timely answer. So you have time to get a strong proposal submitted in advance of the deadline.
Allen Pope (he/him): Yeah, And just as a final reminder, we aim to have all these materials and recording and transcript and slides shared early next week. Hopefully,
Allen Pope (he/him): i'll just say next week on the the geo- Osc. Program page. So if you have colleagues that missed out on this Webinar, you can point them in that direction. Or if you want to revisit the materials, you can as well. Thanks so much, everybody.
Allen Pope (he/him): Thank you. Have a Good Friday. Have a good week, have a Good Friday.