Re: [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
(Continue reading)
RSS Feed