Minutes (Version 0.1 of 2010-10- 8 21:31)

Agenda:

1 (14:00 - 14:10) Welcome, introduction of participants, and acceptance of agenda

2 (14:10 - 14:15) Notes from the Kickoff meeting
The notes from the kickoff meeting are available here . The notes will not be reviewed, but if there are any additional corrections, they will be noted.

3 (14:15 - 14:25) Review of Action Items
A list of the action items is available here . Reports on the status of action items should be submitted where possible before the meeting. Since most AIs are either closed or obsolete only a brief summary will be given.

4 (14:25 - 14:45) Report on Activities of Participants
Each participant is asked to prepare a brief written report on recent activities contributing to the specific activities as listed in the Task Sheet. The written reports for inclusion in the Task Sheet should be submitted before asap to the Task POC. During the meeting, only highlights should be reported.

5 (14:45 - 15:15) Showing GEOSS at Work: Compelling Examples
The ST-09-02 members were asked prior to the meeting to review a number of proposals for compelling examples. Based on the reviews, a selection was made and the result will be presented. We will discuss different options for publishing these examples.

6 (15:15 - 16:00) The GEO Label Report (STC Roadmap Activity 2b)
A preliminary incomplete draft label concept has been distributed to the members. The STC has discussed some aspects. We will discuss the draft proposal for the Label and its implementation.

7 (16:00 - 17:00) A GEOSS Citation Standard (STC Roadmap Activity 2a)
A proposal for a GEOSS Citation Standard will be presented during the meeting. The goal is to agree in the near future on a draft proposal to be presented and discussed at the next STC meeting.

8 (17:00 - 17:20) Presence at major conferences
ST-09-02 has several activities aiming to ensure the presence of GEOSS topics at major conferences either through plenary presentations, dedicated sessions, and side event. The status will be reviewed. This indicates the need to develop a more structured approach for the future. We will discuss how such an approach could be developed.

9 (17:20 - 17:35) GEOSS Promotion Material
We will discuss to what extent we can contribute to the production of promotion material and how this should be disseminated.

10 (17:35 - 17:50) Future WebEx conferences and face2face meetings
The experience over the last year has shown that working only be e-mail is not very productive, and some meeting activity is needed to keep actions going. It is proosed to have at least one meeting per year, preferably two, which should be co-located with other meetings (AGU, STC, future EGIDA meetings). In addition, a WebEx conference should take place every two months.

11 (17:50 - 18:00) Summary and Action Items

Notes:

1 (14:00 - 14:10) Welcome, introduction of participants, and acceptance of agenda

There were no additions are changes to the proposed agenda.

2 (14:10 - 14:15) Notes from the Kickoff meeting

3 (14:15 - 14:25) Review of Action Items

Douglas Cripe informed the participants that with respect to

Action Item ST2-KO-6: Douglas Cripe will work with the GEO Secretariat to get a web-based slide library with high-level slides about GEO and GEOSS started for free down-load by those who would like to compile a presentation including information about GEO or GEOSS. Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-10-31,

David Halpern asked whether the slide library would also include presentations given previously by others that had GEO and GEOSS-related contents. Hans-Peter Plag explained that such presentations were collected under a different activity. The slide library should include a set of carefully selected and annotated slides. He invited David Halpern to send his relevant presentation(s) to him, so that they could be included in the presentation archive.

Action Item ST2-M2-1: David Halpern will send copies of GEO and GEOSS-related presentation(s) to Hans-Peter Plag for inclusion in the presentation archive. Responsible: David Halpern, Deadline: 2010-10-31.

Concerning

Action Item ST2-KO-19: Douglas Cripe will discuss with the Director of the GEO Secretariat to possibility to have the Director give a presentation at the 2009 Conference of the International Association of Universities (IAU). Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2009-08-30,

Action Item ST2-M2-2: Douglas Cripe will investigate the theme of the 2011 Conference of the International Association of Universities (IAU), and, if the theme is appropriate, contact the organizers in order to get a presentation on GEO and GEOSS included in the program. Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2010-12-31.

4 (14:25 - 14:45) Report on Activities of Participants

During the meeting, the following highlights were reported:

Douglas Cripe mentioned the GEOSS meetings in Seattle meeting, which also included a meeting on the Water cycle. He gave a half-hour talk on GEO, focusing on how GEWEX could interact with GEO. He also mentioned another meeting addressing geodesy.

Action Item ST2-M2-3: Douglas Cripe will send a copy of the talk on GEO and GEWEX presented at the Water cycle meeting in Seattle. Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2010-10-31.

Christoph Waldmann reported on IEEE-organized workshop in Seattle, which focused on the emerging CoP for ocean observations. Talks on establishing the CoP are under way, and discussions are focusing on how to proceed. He committed to:

Action Item ST2-M2-4: Christoph Waldmann will send a report on the IEEE-organized workshop held in Seattle on September 19, 2010. Responsible: Christoph Waldmann, Deadline: 2010-10-31.

Jean-Louis Fellous reported on the 38th COSPAR meeting held in June in Bremen, Germany. The program included dedicated sessions on Earth observations and GEOSS. There was also a roundtable discussion and a panel discussion on GEOSS. The Director of the GEO Secretariat gave a keynote on GEOSS.

Action Item ST2-M2-5: Douglas Cripe will make an effort to send the presentation given by the Director of the GEO Secretariat at the 38th COSPAR meeting for inclusion in the presentation archive. Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2010-10-31.

Jean-Louis Fellous also mentioned that COSPAR created a GEO Working group, which is chaired by David Halpern. This WG will propose initiatives, organize GEOSS-related sessions, and ensure presence of GEOSS in publication. Jean-Louis Fellous committed to:

Action Item ST2-M2-6: Jean-Louis Fellous will ensure that Nadine Gobron provides a brief report on the GEOSS session at the 38th COSPAR meeting. Responsible: Jean-Louis Fellous, Deadline: 2010-10-31.

Vojko Bratina reported on the FP7 project EUGINE, which is focusing on three of the nine GEO SBAs: Water, Climate, Disaster. A workshop was organized in Koblenz, Germany focusing on Water.

Stuart Marsh reported on the activities during the first six months of UK-GEO. Main focus was on pulling together the existing communities already engaged. The plan is to span this out to other communities. A Town Hall meeting is planned for early in 2011 (February to March time window), hosting the GEO-Euro-project WS5.

Gisbert Glaser reported that ICSU invited GEO Secretariat members to attend several ICSU committee meetings, which resulted in ICSU learning more about GEO, and the committees initiates ideas of cooperation. The new program on integrated research on disaster risk is developed with GEO participation. ICSU's World data system committee also is aiming to increasing awareness of GEO and GEOSS in ICSU.

David Halpern expressed concerns about a fractionation in GEO through the activities of the U.K. for Europe, GEOSS in the Americas for South America, etc. Stuart Marsh replied that similar to US-GEO, other regions must be able to do some regional coordination. He also extended an invitation to David Halpern to come to any UK-GEO meetings, and he insisted that th

Hans-Peter Plag reported that at the 15th UIC meeting in Oslo, it was discussed whether regional CoPs can be accepted, and he pointed out that a UIC paper on CoPs was restricting GEO CoPs to be global. He expressed concerns that this might keep out important communities which are focusing on issues that are by definition regional, and saw the need for GEO to reconsider the request that GEO CoPs have to be global.

Stuart Marsh contribute the observation that social networks can not be forced, but rather have to develop in a bottom-up fashion. Joan Masó remarked that some regions have language problems and therefore tend to be regional. Hans-Peter Plag added that, e.g., in some of the Caribbean Island states, producing material in Spanish is considered an important contribution to capacity building. Douglas Cripe pointed out that GEOSS is a system of systems, and some of these systems might be regional.

Stuart Marsh reported on a July workshop on GEO and geology, which had a global participation and included several African and European countries. From this workshop, new energy tasks emerged, with one focusing on geothermal energy (France and South Africa). Another task focuses on long-term opportunities to study paleo-climate, and soil data.

Finally Hans-Peter Plag commented on the work of the Task Team during the fifteen months since the kick-off meeting. He pointed out that e-mail contributions were at a very low level and concluded that more meeting activities were needed to stimulate more active participation. This would be addressed at the end of the meeting.

5 (14:45 - 15:15) Showing GEOSS at Work: Compelling Examples

Marc Parsons supported the idea of sending out a template. Stuart Minchin also was positive to sending some guidelines but suggested not to be too prescriptive. Stuart Marsh suggested to include five to six headings to be addressed, and asked that the author would be asked to show how GEO made a difference. Vojko Bratina volunteered to send an example for how he intended to describe the example.

Bente Lilja Bye committed to help with the compilation of guidelines:

Action Item ST2-M2-7: Bente Lilja Bye will compile a few headlines for the one to two-page stories for the handouts of the compelling examples and send these to Hans-Peter Plag for immediate distribution to the authors. Responsible: Bente Lilja Bye, Deadline: 2010-10-1.

Hans-Peter Plag explained the concept for the publication of the compelling examples. He showed the result of the study for the logical structure of the web page for the examples (see pdf ). He explained that the publication of the examples would have to be through a living web page giving access to web sites for the individual examples. In addition, slide shows and/or videos were anticipated. Once the set of examples was representative, a snapshot in form of a book would be considered. He asked for comments and additional suggestions. Stuart Minchin requested that the term compelling examples would not be used on the web page or in publications since this term would not be understood outside of the STC. Hans-Peter Plag replied that the STC Road map and the ST-09-02 Task sheet both use this term, and the term also had been used for the solicitation of proposals. However, Stuart Minchin insisted that the term not be used. Hans-Peter Plag proposed to use in the web page header the text "How GEOSS works for Science and Technology ..." and this was accepted.

Stuart Minchin asked whether the web page for the examples would be separate from the GEO web page or GEO Portal and implied that an integrated solution would be more attractive. Hans-Peter Plag stated that he would prefer an integrated solution, but in the development phase prefer a stand-alone version.

Douglas Cripe reminded the participants that the resources at the GEO Secretariat are very thin, and no free resources for development of web page were available. He expressed agreement with the web pages being developed externally as a stand-alone site. Bente Lilja Bye requested that the design of the web site would be consistent with the design of GEO webn pages. Hans-Peter Plag asked whether the design should be more like the GEO web page or the GEO portal, which were quite different. The final consensus was that the design of the web page should resemble the general design features of the GEO web site and portal.

Hans-Peter Plag made clear that more proposals for compelling examples needed to be solicited. Vojko Bratina volunteered to extend an invitation to a project that likely would be a good example.

Action Item ST2-M2-8: Vojko Bratina will invite an additional proposal for a compelling example. Responsible: Vojko Bratina, Deadline: 2010-10-15.

6 (15:15 - 16:00) The GEO Label Report (STC Roadmap Activity 2b)

The GEO label was then discussed in detail. Gisbert Glaser opened the discussion by stating that there were different issues that needed consideration. He expressed the concern that it might be to early or at all no a good idea to attach a GEO label to data sets or products in the GEOSS registries. There was a need for more data sets to be registered, and he asked whether it could be an impediment to immediately rate the data sets. He also posed questions with respect to the methodology and specifically asked about the difference between the rating for 'Relevance' and 'User Needs'.

Hans-Peter Plag explained that 'Relevance' would be based on the subjective rating provided by individual users (comparable to restaurant or hotel reviews written by individual non-expert customers), while the 'User Needs' rating would be the result of an objective comparison of the data set to the requirements published in the URR (thus more comparable to the rating of restaurants agains well-defined criteria carried out, e.g., by Michelan). He stated that the choice of 'Relevance' for the former rating may not be a good one and proposed to use 'Perception" instead.

Marc Parsons saw conflicting thoughts in the label concept and requested that first it needs to be defined and nailed down what GEO wants to achieve with the label. He also saw a disconnect in the description of the label and the associated goals in the Task sheet.

Stuart Minchin voiced his opinion that the proposed label was overengineering the idea. He requested that the goal should be to have a label that is a stamp of quality and of usage. Scientist would then be able to take this back and say, I have a stamp from GEO. He also made clear that a label would only be supported as a voluntary option. He requested that providers can opt in or out, and stated that it should be up to the provider to decide which parts or which labels they want to be applied to their products.

Hans-Peter Plag explained that the concept described in the draft document does not exclude a voluntary label.

Stuart Minchin responded that in his opinion, the quality label should be based on self-assessment of the quality of products by the provider and explained that an independent assessment would not be accepted in the GEO community. Thus, providers should be able to decide whether theit datasets if silver, gold or platinum.

Marc Parsons agreed with Stuart Minchin and added that most data sets and products made available through GEOSS would not come from individual investigators but rather well established data centers and large organizations. He also requested that it would have to be clear that not having a star in the user rating would not imply that the data are not good. He proposed that user feedback should be implemented as a pilot project.

Hans-Peter Plag made clear that in his opinion the GEO label only makes sense if it can build trust for users, which would require independent assessment. Self-assessment would not be sufficient for trust building. He reported that Gilles Ollier identified a peer-reviewed publication analysing Arctic sea ice data, which cited as data source Google Earth. This motivated the call for a proposal focusing on the development of a label based on clear quality criteria in the last FP7 call. The goal was to create a chracterization of data sets that would make sure that researchers know what data sets to trust.

Marc Parsons expressed strong opposition against this idea and stated that scientific rigor requires that a researcher takes full responsibility to ensure that data is trustworthy before using it for studies. Stuart Minchin repeated his statements that a label based on independent assessment woul not be acceptable in the GEO community, and that the voluntary quality label should be based on independent assessment.

Bente Lilja Bye emphasized the need of a label that could be trusted. Refering to recent examples in the media, where scientists had been criticized for their data usage (e.g., Climate Gate, and the discussion of the global temperature data), she expressed the opinion that if scientists want to be trusted, an indendent judgement would help.

Joan Masó requested that the label would make a distinction between data not rated and data which were badly rated. He also had problem with the distinction between relevance and user needs. Hans-Peter Plag repeated some of his explanations mentioned above.

Jean-Louis Fellous reported on an attempt to create a confidence indicator. However, after trying different approaches, in the end the attmept was given up.

David Halpern proposed to use a scientific method in defining the label. He wanted to let people know what datasets are available, and then measure what data sets were being used. He rejected the idea of doing any evaluatation of data sets and recommended only to let users know know what is being used how much.

Stuart Marsh commented that this might work is if data sets were being cited, and Stuart Minchin added that he considered this only useful for some data sets.

Hans-Peter Plag once more emphasized that in his opinion an independed assessment of the products or data set to be labeled is needed. He emphasized the need for a trust-building label, which would help scientists in several aspects. Commenting on the previous proposal, he found that counting citation could be included in a label, but alone it could be mis-leading since data sets with important mistakes would have a tendency to be accessed and cited frequenty. He then informed the particpants that due to the time he would have to close the discussion.

David Halpern requested that Hans-Peter Plag would summarize and distribute the main points of the discussion, and Hans-Peter Plag responded that the discussion would be reflected as complete as possible in the minutes.

Finally, Hans-Peter Plag concluded that the discussion was not close to a reaching a consensus. In fact, the polarized positions raised the question whether GEO would be able to implement a trust-building label, and expressed his opinion that a label not designed to assure users of the quality and relevance of a data sets would not make very much sense. In this case, it would be better to have a data certification implemented by another organization outside of GEO. With respect to the proposed time schedule, he concluded that there was it was very unlikely that a label concept could be proposed to the next STC meeting, which also excluded the option to have a proposal ready for the discussion in the 2011 Plenary.

Action Item ST2-M2-9: Hans-Peter Plag will updated the draft GEO label document based on the discussion during the ST-09-02 Task Team meeting and distribute the document to the Task team for comments. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2010-10-31.

7 (16:00 - 17:00) A GEOSS Citation Standard (STC Roadmap Activity 2a)

In his presentation Marc Parsons gave an overview of the current best practice with respect to data citation and reviewed the critical issues under discussion in a borad community (see pdf ). With respec to publication of data sets, he emphasized that data should preferably be published in data centers, which can ensure long-term preservation. Publishing data under URLs that can easily change is not a good solution. Traceability of data sets can be insured i a data are taged with a persistent identifier. Although there are a number of alternatives, the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) wo be a good way.

Hans-Peter Plag commented that the DOI is associated with publisher, and asked whether GEO should request a DOI for citation. He also raised the question whether GEOSS can be consider as the publisher or just as a catalogue of objects published by others? If the latter is case, then maybe the others who actually publish the data should set the rules for citation.

Marc Parsons stated that there are several ways to get around the issues, and he agreed that the publishers should apply the identifiers. However, for the immediate future, he stated that all these issues copuld be ignored and GEOSS could use the IPY rules for citation.

Stuart Minchin emphasized that the GEOSS Citation Standard needs to be more than a data citation standard and should cover methodologies and models. He also noted that in some countries, governments and agencies do not allow individuals to be the author of publications or data sets coming out of these agencies. In this case, it would be difficult to give credit to the authors.

Joan Masó reminded that in many cases, the number of citations are used to demonstrate relevance and can impact the salary of an individual. He pointed out that there is the CDI, and this index should be used.

Marc Parsons informed the participants that there may be problems in maintain the IPY guidelines, since soon the funding will run out. He articulated the need to find a host for the guidelines, and asked whether GEOSS could take responsibility for transitioning them into GEOSS guidelines and maintain these afterwards.

David Halpern injected the comment that GEOSS should not put a label on something. Hans-Peter Plag relied that there was no intention to do so since GEOSS does not provide data. Stuart Minchin added that the comment confused the citation standard with the GEO label.

Marc Parsons came back to the point that the identifier for digital objects is an issue, since this would put a GEOSS stamp on data. Stuart Marsh commented that any library put a stamp into the books, but that does not imply that the books are written by the library. Similarly, a GEOSS identifier on digital objects would not imply that the objects are created by GEOSS.

Hans-Peter Plag ask the participants for volunteers to take the IPY guidelines and progress them by adding additional rules. Stuart Minchin proposed to begin with the data part alone and not delay the progress by adding to many other things at this stage. Hans-Peter Plag emphasized that even in this case there was a need to adopt the IPY guideline for GEOSS purposes. Marc Parsons added that solving the identifier issue may take years and recommended not to wait with a GEOSS standard until this is solved.

After some discussion, it was agreed:

Action Item ST2-M2-10: Steffen Fritz with help from Joan Masó will review the IPY citation guidelines and adopt these for GEOSS purpose. He will circulate the updated guidelines to the ST-09-02 Task team for comments to be provided in the December 2010 to January 2011 period. Responsible: Steffen Fritz, Deadline: 2010-11-30.

After iteration in the ST-09-02 Task team, the further process will be discussed with the STC Co-chairs. The goal is to have a proposal for a standard discussed by all committees and ready for discussion in the GEO Plenary 2011.

8 (17:00 - 17:20) Presence at major conferences

Action Item ST2-M2-11: Bente Lilja Bye will support Russell Lefevre in the compilation of a list of major science conferences in the nine SBAs. Responsible: Bente Lilja Bye, Deadline: 2010-12-31.

Stuart Marsh emphasized the need to cary nout this activity with the goal to compile a strategic list. Stuart Minchin reported that the 34th ISRSE meeting in April in Sydney in fact has GEOSS in the title.

Marc Parsons reported on several events related to GEO North and OGC protocols.

Hans-Peter Plag requested that a concept be developed to ensure presence of GEOSS-related presentations, sessions and side events at meetings in SBAs currently nnot targeted. Bente Lilja Bye suggested to discussed various approaches. It was proposed:

Action Item ST2-M2-12: Russell Lefevre as lead of the EGIDA outreach WP will develop a concept for the outreach to scientific conferences and provide this to the Task team for discussion. Responsible: Russell Lefevre, Deadline: 2010-12-31.

9 (17:20 - 17:35) GEOSS Promotion Material

10 (17:35 - 17:50) Future WebEx conferences and face2face meetings

He also raised the question of strengthening the task lead by adding the EGDIA WP 3 leader. After some discussion, it was concluded that the EC would become a co-lead of the task and identify a member of the EGIDA consortium as the representative o the EC as co-lead.

Action Item ST2-M2-13: Florence Beroud will inform Hans-Peter Plag and the GEO Secretariat who is going to represent the EC as co-lead od ST-09-02. Responsible: Florence Beroud, Deadline: 2010-12-31.

It was also discussed that all EGIDA partners involved in the EGIDA Work Package 3 could, and should, join the ST-09-02 Task Team. Stuart Minchin explained that if they could not be a representative of GEO Member Country or a Participating Organization, then they would have to be seconded by a member of the Task team representing either a Member Country or a Participating Organization. Florence Beroud pointed out that the EGIDA partners were all considered representatives of the EC and therefore could join the Task team as such.

Joan Masó voice his opinion that a one-hour WebEx meeting every month would be better than a two-hour WebEx meeting every second months. David Halpern requested that the Task Team meeting would not be co-located with other meeting since in his position more shorter trips would be easier to accomodate than fewer longer trips.

Marc Parsons, Vojko Bratina, and David Halpern supported the proposal by Joan Masó to have a WebEx conference every month. Hans-Peter Plag was not in favor of having only short, one-hour WebEx conferences since these would seldom allow to conclude discussions and often require to take up the same discussion in subsequent meeting, which would lead to a lot of wasted effort. Bente Lilja Bye supported this view and commented that the discussions during the meeting had demonstrated that the Task team needed time for real discussions, which would be difficult to integrate into short WebEx conferences.

Stuart Marsh recommended to separate the two issues and have a sequence of monthly one-hour WebEx conference for regular reporting, and, if needed additional WebEx conferences for focused discussions on specific themes.

As a result of the discussion, it was agreed:

Action Item ST2-M2-14: Hans-Peter Plag will set up a doodle poll to identify the best week, day and time in a month to have monthly ST-09-02 WebEx conferences. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2010-10-15.

Action Item ST2-M2-15: All ST-09-02 Task Team members will populate the doodle poll with their availability. Responsible: All, Deadline: 2010-10-30.

11 (17:50 - 18:00) Summary and Action Items

Action Item ST2-M2-1: David Halpern will send copies of GEO and GEOSS-related presentation(s) to Hans-Peter Plag for inclusion in the presentation archive. Responsible: David Halpern, Deadline: 2010-10-31.

Action Item ST2-M2-2: Douglas Cripe will investigate the theme of the 2011 Conference of the International Association of Universities (IAU), and, if the theme is appropriate, contact the organizers in order to get a presentation on GEO and GEOSS included in the program. Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2010-12-31.

Action Item ST2-M2-3: Douglas Cripe will send a copy of the talk on GEO and GEWEX presented at the Water cycle meeting in Seattle. Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2010-10-31.

Action Item ST2-M2-4: Christoph Waldmann will send a report on the IEEE-organized workshop held in Seattle on September 19, 2010. Responsible: Christoph Waldmann, Deadline: 2010-10-31.

Action Item ST2-M2-5: Douglas Cripe will make an effort to send the presentation given by the Director of the GEO Secretariat at the 38th COSPAR meeting for inclusion in the presentation archive. Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2010-10-31.

Action Item ST2-M2-6: Jean-Louis Fellous will ensure that Nadine Gobron provides a brief report on the GEOSS session at the 38th COSPAR meeting. Responsible: Jean-Louis Fellous, Deadline: 2010-10-31.

Action Item ST2-M2-7: Bente Lilja Bye will compile a few headlines for the one to two-page stories for the handouts of the compelling examples and send these to Hans-Peter Plag for immediate distribution to the authors. Responsible: Bente Lilja Bye, Deadline: 2010-10-1.

Action Item ST2-M2-8: Vojko Bratina will invite an additional proposal for a compelling example. Responsible: Vojko Bratina, Deadline: 2010-10-15.

Action Item ST2-M2-9: Hans-Peter Plag will updated the draft GEO label document based on the discussion during the ST-09-02 Task Team meeting and distribute the document to the Task team for comments. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2010-10-31.

Action Item ST2-M2-10: Steffen Fritz with help from Joan Masó will review the IPY citation guidelines and adopt these for GEOSS purpose. He will circulate the updated guidelines to the ST-09-02 Task team for comments to be provided in the December 2010 to January 2011 period. Responsible: Steffen Fritz, Deadline: 2010-11-30.

Action Item ST2-M2-11: Bente Lilja Bye will support Russell Lefevre in the compilation of a list of major science conferences in the nine SBAs. Responsible: Bente Lilja Bye, Deadline: 2010-12-31.

Action Item ST2-M2-12: Russell Lefevre as lead of the EGIDA outreach WP will develop a concept for the outreach to scientific conferences and provide this to the Task team for discussion. Responsible: Russell Lefevre, Deadline: 2010-12-31.

Action Item ST2-M2-13: Florence Beroud will inform Hans-Peter Plag and the GEO Secretariat who is going to represent the EC as co-lead od ST-09-02. Responsible: Florence Beroud, Deadline: 2010-12-31.

Action Item ST2-M2-14: Hans-Peter Plag will set up a doodle poll to identify the best week, day and time in a month to have monthly ST-09-02 WebEx conferences. Responsible: Hans-Peter Plag, Deadline: 2010-10-15.

Action Item ST2-M2-15: All ST-09-02 Task Team members will populate the doodle poll with their availability. Responsible: All, Deadline: 2010-10-30.

Minutes prepared by Hans-Peter Plag