Minutes, 2011-08-08

The Climate Code Foundation Advisory Committee held its third meeting
on 2011-08-08 at 13:00 GMT (14:00 BST, 09:00 EDT), by telephone
conference call, supported by live Etherpad documents.

Committee members attending:

Kate Willett (chair)
Peter Thorne
James Annan
Glyn Moody
Peter Murray-Rust (computer crashing out occasionally)
Cameron Neylon
Venkatramani Balaji

and from the Foundation: Nick Barnes and David Jones

Apologies received from:

Paul Edwards
Andrew Woolf
Stefan Brönnimann
Reto Ruedy
Steve Easterbrook

John Christy was also expected.

In the course of the meeting, Nick Barnes took minutes by directly
editing the agenda document in a live online document (using Etherpad
at okfnpad.org). Formatting note: minutes are emphasized like


1. Introductions, apologies, technical matters

Committee members are invited to write textual comments directly in
the status report below; Nick Barnes will pick these up and minute

2. Minutes from previous meeting.

These are at http://climatecode.org/about/advisory-committee/minutes-2011-04-07/

As they were approved at the end of the last meeting, we do not expect
any corrections or objections, but now is the time to raise them if
there are any.

No corrections or objections.

3. Committee Procedures.

3.1. Procedures in meetings.

The procedures of the previous meeting seemed to work well, and are
documented in the previous minutes. Brief review for new attendees:
minutes are recorded here in this etherpad document, and subject to
approval at the end of the meeting. If there is unanimous assent,
minutes will be immediately published.

We will continue with this system.

4. Foundation status report.

The report is here:

Nick Barnes will give a brief overview and answer questions.

PT: IEEE Software (is indexed by ISI) may be somewhat esoteric to your intended audience. What plans do you have to promote it outside the journal to try to get visibility? Write another paper (e.g. on sensitivity analyses) for JGR or similar. See also discussion in the chat regarding a more formal climate submission. PT.

Balaji: Wolfram Research has new format Computational Document Format (CDF) allowing code to be embedded in documents. GM: nice idea, but closed source. An open source alternative might be http://www.dexy.it/.

CN: Possible Science Code Manifesto endorsers: PLoS Comp Biol, GigaScience, NPG, BioMedCentral, EGU

PMR – At final meeting with sponsors OSID was well received by sponsors and CC contribution was appreciated. PMR looking at potential further work but no promises.

PT: The GSoC Mentor Summit seems your best current avenue to some sort of sustainable support in the short term so I think you would be mad not to go. If we can get a partnership under a google CRACER with a US gov’t instiutution with you as a consultant then your funding issues go away.

PT: Following GSoC visit, NCDC have followed up with Google Point-of-Contact and a phone call may occur this week or next to discuss further. NCDC are keen to open up as much of their science process as possible. I will make best endeavors to keep the foundation key in the discussions. NCDC would also wish to have Daniel visit at the end of his work and present a more formal seminar and line up more formal visit structure.

Daniel’s work has uncovered a number of potential coding bugs (inevitable) which NCDC are in the process of investigating and implementing corrections to. A tech note and version pointing is likely to accompany resolution. This shows the real value of this kind of activity scientifically.

PT: The UK consulate general visits NCDC next week and the possibility of a workshop in Asheville on climate code issues is one of the issues we will raise. We may suggest trying to get JISC and UKFCO SIN (and NSF?) to support an Asheville workshop at NCDC.

5. Advice

The committee is asked to address this general question:

– How can we improve the Foundation’s plan and strategy, to better
meet our goals?

The status report requests advice in these specific areas:

– Fundraising;
(see above for Sloan, FCO/JISC/NSF, Google CRACER, Soros)
Balaji: the idea of recruiting someone familiar with NGO world is good, because the committtee doesn’t have this expertise.
KW: EPSRC rather than NERC?
PT: Probably need to partner with UK academia down these more traditional UK funding routes. Reading.

– Institutional Partnerships;
see above: NCDC
KW: can get us into external seminar at Met Office
PT: Climate Monitoring and Attribution Group specifically?

Of course the committee may wish to offer other advice.

Balaji: CCF seems to be concentrating on code for interpreting observations, as opposed to modelling. Should change the scope?
GM: talk to Charles Arthur at Guardian
NB: Science Code Manifesto is not our ‘core business’, I want to launch it but wouldn’t mind then handing it off to someone else.

6. Any Other Business

The next meeting will be in November. NB will prompt KW to schedule it in October.

7. Agreeing the Minutes

Unanimously by members present:


Actions Arising

Committee members volunteered for various actions:

  • Peter Thorne will cheerlead for the Foundation at discussions between NCDC and Google.
  • PT: NCDC will organize follow up visit to NCDC by Daniel Rothenburg
  • KW: organise a CCF talk at the Met Office

Foundation staff have the following actions arising:

  • David Jones will immediately form a posse to write a journal paper on sensitivity analyses out of ccc-gistemp.
  • Nick Barnes to contact Charles Arthur at the Guardian.
  • Nick Barnes to finish Science Code Manifesto website and notify usual suspects.
  • Nick Barnes to link to friends@ and network@ mailing lists from CCF website.
  • Nick and/or David to go to Google meeting.