[Scorecard] Agenda & materials for dec 4 meeting

[Peter Vorster]

Did something get sent out detailing the calendar and assignments from the
Dec 4 meeting.  I fear that my filters sometimes take out valuable e-mails.

peter

On 12/3/08 3:48 PM, "Frances Knapczyk" <Frances at naparcd.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Please find materials for tomorrow¹s meeting attached to this email: Agenda
> (also see below), revised summary of comments, revised table of indicator
> status, 2 tech reports, template to fill in at tomorrow¹s meeting.
> --The revised summary of comments and table of indicator status are updates of
> the files I sent before Thanksgiving.  The changes are small but important.
> --Filling in the attached templates will take up the bulk of tomorrow¹s
> meeting.  
>  
> Please bring copies of technical report & template to meeting.
>  
>  
> Agenda for technical team meeting
> Dec 4, 1:30 ­ 4:30
> Sonoma Ecology Center Watershed Station
>  
> 1.     Review agenda items and timing. 5 minutes.
> 2.     Calendar. 10 minutes.
> a.     By Dec 19: technical authors submit template sheet, compare 5- versus
> 3-increment scoring.
> b.     By Dec 15: technical authors submit draft data and metadata to Pat
> Stiefer at SEC.
> c.      By Dec 31: Document editors revise and submit to funder the draft
> technical reports, scorecards, scorecard reports, data and metadata.
> d.     By Jan 9: technical authors submit revisions of their sections.
> e.     By Jan 23: peer reviews complete.
> f.       Jan 27: last team meeting. More assignments likely.
> g.     By Feb 20: last opportunity for input from technical authors.
> h.     By Feb 28: document editors submit to funder the final technical
> reports, scorecards, scorecard reports, data and metadata.
> 3.     Recent decisions. 45 minutes.
> a.     Scorecard structure.
> b.     Scoring on an annual basis.
> c.      Need to estimate uncertainty/variance. Lisa.
> d.     Need to clarify logic process. ³Topic sentences.²
> e.     Explore 3-increment scoring.
> f.       Need to make assumptions and hypotheses explicit.
> g.     Need to link indicators to other indicators and to conceptual model.
> h.     Try to include low flow.
> 4.     Work through template sheet for indicators (attached), starting with
> simpler indicators. 1 hour, 45 minutes.
> 5.     Assign peer reviews. 15 minutes.
>  
>  
> Frances Knapczyk
> Education Coordinator
> Napa County Resource Conservation District
> 1303 Jefferson Street Suite 500B
> Napa, CA 94559
> 707/252-4188 x 120
> frances at naparcd.org
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Scorecard mailing list
> Scorecard at sonomacreek.net
> http://sonomacreek.net/mailman/listinfo/scorecard_sonomacreek.net


-- 
Peter Vorster
Hydrologist
The Bay Institute
Home Office
3901 Balfour Ave
Oakland, CA 94610
510-444-5755 Voice/Fax
415-272-4209  Cell
vorster at bay.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sonomacreek.net/pipermail/scorecard_sonomacreek.net/attachments/20081209/f01a2c4e/attachment.html>