This commentary by Dario Paple has now been seen by three reviewers that provide useful and important comments.

Both Jason Beringer (JB) and Bruno Marion promote important extensions of the Fluxnet data to commercial use and for forecasting which will be good to consider. But I am more concerned with the main comments from both JB and Joshua Fisher (JF). While clearly encouraging the discussion that Dario Papale has initiated, there is also a clear dose of skepticism, and a sense of “wishful thinking” (e.g. direct on-line data use, or the expectations with imposing a new world order on clusters). I concur with these concerns. In fact, I was expecting much more community discussion of this ‘Discussion Paper’ and I, in fact, made a significant effort to get more reviews on board. Failing in both expectations maybe consistent with the concerns raised by the reviewers.

It seems to me that the comments center on two main arguments. First, the sort of “if it’s ain’t broke, don’t fix it” nature. After all, Fluxnet has been a formidable and enormously successful project (to which author has greatly contributed, and I have been a happy member of for 20 years).

The second, seems to suggest “evolution” over the “revolution” of the type proposed, noting some of the dangers, such as losing the data sharing nature of the current system, the complications that can arise from going “continental”, and the inability to impose, control, or manage such complicated and totally voluntary system.

The motivation for proposing changes is clear when it comes from someone who invested tremendous efforts in the current system of periodical data compilations. But it might require less committed, done-deal type presentation and more exploration of some alternatives, with more pros and cons.

For example, it could be useful to add a Table comparing the functioning of the existing regional networks, highlighting the good the bad and the missing. It might be good to present some gradual steps that can be taken from the good old system (see both JF and JB major comments) before breaking up to independent clusters. Consider how to gradually expand the already exiting cluster services, but keep the non-aligned sites active partners. Perhaps consider if it would be feasible to maintain the current system and shuttle the responsibility for the periodical data compilation among the sub-networks every few years (an alternative concept to the proposed “Fluxnet Shuttle”?)

And so I recommend major revisions of the paper seriously considering the critical (!) comments of the reviewers, going beyond the responses posted so far that are, arguably, not sufficiently convincing. I am confident that a revised version will deserve more response and discussion.

The original version of this Perspective piece was already quite strongly supported by two expert reviewers. They nevertheless suggested, together with the editor, some improvements to make the ms more clear and balanced. The revised version, accordingly, adjusted and expanded parts of the text, updated references, and included new and useful Diagram and two Tables. As this is an "Opinion" piece, the author should be given considerable freedom, provided the ms has no errors and it is well balanced. I think the revised version achieves this and BG should provide the platform for the author to lay out his personal perspective on how to advance one of the most important global scale cooperative observational research effort in the Earth sciences. I therefore recommend publication of the revised version in its present form.