teams comment

From an education perspective, I like the team approach as I envision this as
the topic of the year (or two year) in which the research, extension and
education focus on a specific topic.   For example, I look forward to the
search and research effort combining with the circulation models so that next
year we can develop an appropriate awareness poster for the region and also
have the group feed ideas to the educators about inquiry lessons.   We are
testing this idea with small groups of teachers and researchers this year and
finding some success.  This type of directed discussion and action makes the
time involved have distinct and measureable products.

L

Lundie Spence, Ph.D.
Director, COSEE SouthEast
South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium
287 Meeting Street
Charleston, SC 29401
P: 843-727-2078
F: 843-727-2080
E:  lundie.spence <at> scseagrant.org
Web:  www.scseagrant.org/se-cosee/
Serving SC, NC and GA

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Weisberg [mailto:weisberg <at> marine.usf.edu] 
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:51 PM
To: SEACOOS Ocean Circulation effect on Emergency Response Team
Cc: Harvey Seim; Cisco Werner; Robert Weisberg; Dr. Madilyn Fletcher; Jim
Nelson; Robert Bacon; Mooers, Christopher
Subject: Re: [seacoos-team-response-circulation] [Fwd: SEACOOS White Paper
for Marine Emergency Management Applications Team]

Chris,
   While I agree that perhaps not enough thought went into the initial 
organization, and I also admit that I was originally nonplused by the 
Teams concept (I was afraid of one more level of work leading nowhere - 
so I am taking no credit whatsoever for the Teams concept), I must say 
that now I am firmly behind it, with a caveat, of course.  If we limit 
each team to an enumerated set of topics on which we can indeed perform, 
then each Team may potentially overcome the cultural barriers and 
advance the way in which academics, government and private sector groups 
engage.  If we make the Teams too broad then we will have neither the 
energy nor the personnel to perform well enough.  So in that sense we 
could reorganize and expand, but I would prefer to use the workshop to 
cull what we have down to a mutually agreeable set of topics within 
three teams (waves, fisheries, SAR, or however we want to reword these) 
and attempt to do good work on a limited few foci.
   I believe that we are saying similar things.  It then becomes the 
choice of what we think we want to work on (and no one is limited to 
just working on a specific Team topic).  From the various discussions 
that I've had I do think that fisheries provides a strategic, stand 
alone focus even though its P.O. needs (Eulerian and Lagrangian 
circulation) complement those of the other teams.
   In summary, while COOS must be all things to all OceanUS enumerated 
issues, the SEACOOS Teams, in my opinion, should focus in on a small 
subset of these issues (our Teams preamble should be broad, but our 
initial application should be narrow).  If we do this well then we will 
have set a template for how to tackle other issues in a 
multidisciplinary, multiagency way.
   It will be difficult to come to a limited number of topics, and these 
may vary between subregions, but I think it will be worth the effort.
Bob

Christopher N. K. Mooers wrote:

> Bob - I think we need to re-examine the organization of our application 
> teams; they were originated without a lot of forethought. For example, 
> to have a "waves team" is like having a "currents team" or a "T/S team". 
> Also, much of the Lagrangian info needed for spills & SAR and for 
> fisheries is in common. Maybe we need an "integrated sea level      
> (storm surge, tides, and waves) team", a "drift and dispersion 
> (Lagrangian)  team", and an "offshore operations and habitat (Eulerian) 
> team". It would also be good to re-analyze the categorical needs of our 
> user communities from the practical perspective of organization and 
> communications. Some of this will be made a lot clearer when we meet our 
> non-academic partners. - Chris
> 
> 
> Bob Weisberg wrote:
> 
>> Chris,
>>   Good stuff.  Here are few few more comments.
>> Bob
>>
>> Christopher N. K. Mooers wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> Dear Colleagues - See the attached. - Cheers, Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject:
>>> SEACOOS White Paper for Marine Emergency Management Applications Team
>>> From:
>>> "Christopher N. K. Mooers" <cmooers <at> rsmas.miami.edu>
>>> Date:
>>> Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:22:56 -0400
>>> To:
>>> Harvey Seim <hseim <at> email.unc.edu>, Cisco Werner 
>>> <cisco <at> email.unc.edu>, Robert Weisberg 
>>> <weisberg <at> seas.marine.usf.edu>, "Dr. Madilyn Fletcher" 
>>> <fletcher <at> biol.sc.edu>, Jim Nelson <nelson <at> skio.peachnet.edu>, Bob 
>>> Bacon <robert.bacon <at> scseagrant.org>, "Mooers, Christopher" 
>>> <cmooers <at> rsmas.miami.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Colleagues - Madilyn in particular requested to see the latest 
>>> edition of subject white paper.---Cisco & Co., when you figure out 
>>> the list serve connection, please forward to my team. I tried earlier 
>>> this week and received no response.--- There are other important 
>>> points I want to address in the white paper; e.g., the need for 
>>> localized mesoscale atmospheric forecasts for surface winds and 
>>> waves, etc. -  Cheers, Chris
>>>
>>>   
>>
>>
>> --- You are currently subscribed to seacoos-team-response-circulation 
>> as: cmooers <at> rsmas.miami.edu.
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
>> leave-seacoos-team-response-circulation-4657117N <at> listserv.unc.edu
>>
> 
> 

--- You are currently subscribed to seacoos-team-response-circulation as:
lundie.spence <at> scseagrant.org.
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-seacoos-team-response-circulation-4657117N <at> listserv.unc.edu

--- You are currently subscribed to seacoos-team-response-circulation as: gsgstcr-SEACOOS-Team-Response-Circulation <at> gmane.org.
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-seacoos-team-response-circulation-4657117N <at> listserv.unc.edu