[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
(meteorobs) Cooperation
Lew's two cents:
>(And coincidentally, Jim, there are existing meteor organizations whose=
> charter falls in between these two goals - such as the NAMN. These=
> organizations could benefit from teaming up with A.M.S. for education, but=
> A.M.S. could ALSO <emphasis> benefit from teaming up with them... It really=
> is a two-way street.)
Lew's right. I've been saying some similar things behind the scenes here
amongst AMS. I don't want to talk out of turn, but it will have to be
approached somewhat gingerly, I think there were some bridges burned in the
last few years between the leadership of the various organizations. No
finger pointing, please.
I did see in last summer's exchanges a passing reference to submitting NAMN
data to the AMS database, using some form of electronic transmission. This
has possibilities.
First a word about the AMS database. I think this is one of AMS's greatest
(untapped) assets, a veritable treasure trove of data available for
analysis. What AMS has going for it with this archive is this:
-Status with the federal government as a Small Depository Archive
-A permanent home in an academic institution
-A written policy governing access
-existing data going back over 100 years
I don't know what kind of archival arrangement that NAMN has now.
Personally, I think NAMN could ensure the preservation of its valuable
observational data, and AMS could enhance its archive by the inclusion of
NAMN data. Being that your organization is essentially an electronic one,
electronic submission would be the way to go, even if it's as simple as
e-mailing your forms to me (since I do have a fancy title now :)) and I
print them out and mail them off en mass to Geneseo.
I understand (behind the scenes again) that there is some movement toward
some professional statistical analysis of the AMS data newer than 1975, data
that, for the most part, hasn't been completely worked up. I myself harbor
a dream of going to Geneseo for a couple of weeks some year and extracting a
hundred years (!) worth of data on a given shower and looking at it in terms
of magnitude distributions, rates, and changes over the long term.
I also saw last in last summer's anti-AMS broadsides some statements about
the AMS not accepting data that was also channeled to IMO. That's not true
at all, we just want to know when the same data is duplicated elsewhere, in
case it becomes a factor someday for someone trying to reconcile the two
datasets. My own data goes to AMS, and also to ALPO, which then sends it on
to IMO, I think. And Norm McLeod is our very own Visual Program
Coordinator, I think we know where all HIS data is going.
As Jim Richardson has said, the olive branch is out, let's explore areas of
possible mutual cooperation.
Jim Bedient
Honolulu, Hawaii
Follow-Ups: