urban Quality of Life Indicators WG meeting - 4th Plenary

Hi Chris,
Thanks for the UoL Indicators Case Statement. A quickie: in Section 4, bullet point 5, does it mean monthly OR quarterly?
Cheers,
Elizabeth Griffin
- Show quoted text -From: cpettit=***@***.***-groups.org [cpettit=***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of cpettit [***@***.***]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 9:19 AM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [rda_urbanqli_wg] urban Quality of Life Indicators WG meeting - 4th Plenary
Hi All,
Thank-you for those who attended our second WG meeting at the RDA 4th
Plenary last week.
We had some robust discussions and Glenn Geers has kindly agreed to write
up the notes of the meeting and circulate to all shortly.
After the meeting the Chairs met to review our Case Statement, which the
RDA Technical Advisory Board (TAB) had suggested minor modifications.
However, given the discussions we had at the meeting, which started
leading us down some quite open ended paths we decided to considerably
tighten and somewhat refocus our proposed work program. Therefore, we have
revised our Case Statement accordingly.
Would appreciate if everyone could have a look at this and provide any
comments by the 13th October. At which time we will reconsider inputs and
then finalise and send to the TAB for approval and then final sign off by
the RDA Council
Once our Working group plan has been approved we will look at meeting
Monthly to undertake the work.
Look forward to continue working with you all.
I will be visiting Toronto next week and will be catching up with Mark Fox
and others to forward our work agenda.
Best wishes
Chris
Chris Pettit, PhD
Associate Professor
Strategic Implementation Coordinator, AURIN
Level 2 West, Alice Hoy Building
University of Melbourne 3010
AUSTRALIA
T: +61 03 9035 4379
M: 0422 301 832
E: ***@***.***
W: www.aurin.org.au

Elizabeth
Thanks for picking this up. It was decided quarterly was not frequent
enough so we are to meet monthly. I have updated the document accordingly.
Best wishes
Chris

Hi Chris,
It may not matter that much, since we are not obliged to follow guidelines or recommendations as though they were hard and fast Rules. However, there is something about the imperious Haste which dominates the RDA that creates the very strong
impression that it will burn itself out quickly if it tries to maintain a schedule that is gruellingly dominant and urgent. Had I been present I would have argued the case for provision that "quarterly" could be (or become) a workable and acceptable schedule.
Therefore, how about "monthly OR quarterly"?
I have tried to run WGs where it was a firm initial intention to hold a monthly telecon, but we soon found that things in the great wide world were not in fact changing on that time-scale, nor could we make them, so much of the meeting consisted of "nothing to report since the last", and the high frequency of meetings then had the very negative effect that we wished to avoid. There will undoubtedly be months when participation in a monthly meeting will have little to say or have little attendance, e.g. in August or December/January, unless some pressing issue has arisen. Scope for the latter could always find some expression, e.g., "or more frequently as needed".
I am not trying to undermine in any way the good intentions of this new WG; I merely want to help with its external impression of something that is realistic, manageable, and intentionally long-term. If the WG runs something like a wiki, there could be virtual
space too for discussing issues as and when they arise.
Cheers,
Elizabeth Griffin

Hi Elizabeth
Good point. We can aspire for monthly but if we don't make it for what
ever reason we can then meet less frequent. It may be certain individuals
who are more active in the working group meet more regularly than others.
Longevity and next steps beyond what is proposed in the initial case
statement is definitely something we will need to give due consideration.
Best wishes
Chris

Hi Elizabeth -
Your points about pointless teleconferences are valid. However, writing as one of the TAB members who reviewed the case statement, I was one of the people who expressed some concerns about the original proposal. My reasoning was -
1. WGs are expected to deliver on an 18 month schedule;
2. The UQoL WG proposed quite a significant set of outputs;
3. it just did not seem plausible to me at least for this to be kept on track with only 5 meetings during its operation (the quarterly option).
Point 1. comes from the RDA rules, but 2. was from the WG proposers. If there is a perception of 'imperious haste' around RDA, then we need to be clear about what the source of that is. Ambitious workplans are great, but you also need to keep in mind what it will take to keep to them.
Simon Cox | Research Scientist
CSIRO Land and Water
PO Box 56, Highett Vic 3190, Australia
Tel +61 3 9252 6342 | Mob +61 403 302 672
***@***.*** | http://csiro.au/people/SimonCox
________________________________________
From: cpettit=***@***.***-groups.org [cpettit=***@***.***-groups.org] on behalf of cpettit [***@***.***]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 October 2014 1:10 AM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [rda_urbanqli_wg] urban Quality of Life Indicators WG meeting - 4th Plenary
Hi Elizabeth
Good point. We can aspire for monthly but if we don't make it for what
ever reason we can then meet less frequent. It may be certain individuals
who are more active in the working group meet more regularly than others.
Longevity and next steps beyond what is proposed in the initial case
statement is definitely something we will need to give due consideration.
Best wishes
Chris
=

Hi Simon,
Thanks for your response. I share your concerns.
Perhaps I come from a different world - that of the research scientist - where we are all heavily engaged in multiple collaborations and projects, and also have a core field of research to deliver, so spending the kinds of concentrated time on any one theme is pretty well out of the question. It is hard to become and remain as singular in thought and project as the dedication here outlined would need. To frame a number of necessarily complex WG projects that have to be performed, analysed and completed within 18 months is requiring something quite unsustainable from the members, and should not be embarked upon when there is no reasonable hope of delivering as fully as the project wants (and as the PIs dream). Unsustainable projects tend to burn out their operators, and to cause all-round disappointment in the longer term.
I see the brevity of time-scales as a major conceptual fault with the RDA. Theoretical data pundits and database managers may see such projects as all in their day's work, but for researchers who have a load of peripheral commitments associated with planning, acquiring, manipulating and analysing new data, it's a tall order and one likely to fail. Since the RDA does not appear to have taken that message to heart, one has to assume that it was set up by theoretical data-manages.
Kind regards,
Elizabeth Griffin
________________________________________
From: simon.cox=***@***.***-groups.org [simon.cox=***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of simon.cox [***@***.***]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 3:33 PM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [rda_urbanqli_wg] urban Quality of Life Indicators WG meeting - 4th Plenary
Hi Elizabeth -
Your points about pointless teleconferences are valid. However, writing as one of the TAB members who reviewed the case statement, I was one of the people who expressed some concerns about the original proposal. My reasoning was -
1. WGs are expected to deliver on an 18 month schedule;
2. The UQoL WG proposed quite a significant set of outputs;
3. it just did not seem plausible to me at least for this to be kept on track with only 5 meetings during its operation (the quarterly option).
Point 1. comes from the RDA rules, but 2. was from the WG proposers. If there is a perception of 'imperious haste' around RDA, then we need to be clear about what the source of that is. Ambitious workplans are great, but you also need to keep in mind what it will take to keep to them.
Simon Cox | Research Scientist
CSIRO Land and Water
PO Box 56, Highett Vic 3190, Australia
Tel +61 3 9252 6342 | Mob +61 403 302 672
***@***.*** | http://csiro.au/people/SimonCox
________________________________________
From: cpettit=***@***.***-groups.org [cpettit=***@***.***-groups.org] on behalf of cpettit [***@***.***]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 October 2014 1:10 AM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [rda_urbanqli_wg] urban Quality of Life Indicators WG meeting - 4th Plenary
Hi Elizabeth
Good point. We can aspire for monthly but if we don't make it for what
ever reason we can then meet less frequent. It may be certain individuals
who are more active in the working group meet more regularly than others.
Longevity and next steps beyond what is proposed in the initial case
statement is definitely something we will need to give due consideration.
Best wishes
Chris
=

It's still October 13th in Toronto, so here are my comments:
Section 1: Good as is.
Section 2: I find the first paragraph unnecessary. We should not be trying to convince people that indicators are important as that work has already been done by many groups.
The 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence " A select number of cities will be used to create UQoL indicators ...", should be restated so that our focus is on attempting to compute one or more indicators based on the available open data (we are not "creating" indicators). One of the issues not mentioned is whether the data is actually available.
Also, don't forget Canada.
Section 3: Please add the University of Toronto as participating with a focus on Toronto's Open Data.
Section 4: I believe we need to focus on a small set of indicators. Each month we should select a single indicator and investigate what open data is available in each city to compute it. At the end of each month we should meet/report on what is available, format, scale, quality, provenance, etc. and what barriers exist and why.
I also believe we need to develop a rating system. The system would rate each city as to its readiness in providing open data in support of indicators. Chris and I will be circulating a draft document describing a possible rating system.
I see no reason to host indicators in a platform, if each city's data is already open. What we should do is create a Semantic Web description of how and where an indicator's supporting data can be found. More on this in the above mentioned document.
Assessing the feasibility of an urban data dictionary is an important task. We need some additional structure to the task so that we can report on it each month with respect to the indicator being investigated.
- Mark