Organisational Assembly - Denver (Closed meeting)

Draft agenda

Plenary 8, Denver

Thursday 15 September 2016, 16:00-17:30 (local time)

Closed meeting - Room Spruce (Tower Building - Mezzanine Level)

 

Chair - Juan Bicarregui - Slides

  1. Call to Order and introduction, 5'
    • On-line presence list (tbc)
  2. Update from Council and Funders Forum (for information and discussion) 15', Fran Berman, RPI, USA - John Wood, ACU, UK, RDA Council and Amy Nurnberger, Juan Bicarregui, OA co-chairs and Mark Parsons, RDA Secretary General
    • Secretary General status update - first part - Mark Parsons (Slides-Note that the slides include sensitive budget data so if OA members want to receive the presentation please send an e-mail to enquiries@rd-alliance.org). Major activities of the secretariat were reported as follows:
      • Major activities since May
        • Implementing the communication plan
          • Still need to evaluate the current progress, but overall improved. There are now regular newsletters, regular contacts and blogs.
        • Future Directions document being underway.
        • Council Subcommittees.
        • RDA Recommendations
        • Plenary organised as part of the International Data Week (IDW).
          • Intense effort was required but brought efficiency. Better to the community at large. A survey is coming up for evauation. Please respond. And also some targeted interviews. From an RDA persective: extra benefit but also value.
        • Regular operations continue
          • theRDA Foundation won its first grant/project about SKA Europe. The project is called AENEAS. 6 weeks of my time over two years. This came from DG RTD: Partnership with RDA was encouraged. Highlighting something that can be taken up later on.
      • Budget:
        • Small secretariat.
          • Lynn Yarmey new member in the US. Herman Stehower left. To be replaced by an assistant (more real secretariat). A lot of PhDs. More admin needed.
        • RDA Foundation status at the end of June.
      • Questions:
        • Leif Laaksonen: What is the role of RDA in the AENEAS project and how will this work? It is much more than the grant. Mark Parsons: RDA relationship with SKA is not yet clear. And with other communities. But we will work on this. Leif Laaksonen: RDA Europe has a lot of money for engagement with communities. Coordination needed. Action: Fotis to take a note about coordination between AENEAS project and RDA Europe community engagement.
        • Leif Laaksonen: What is uptake of the Future Directions document? Mark: To report next meeting. Amy: We have it in our agenda. Mark: Short summary: I have a spreadsheet of keeping track of the current status. Leif: Picture with status bars would be useful, with green or red. Mostly beneficial for the membership. Mark: Stefanie working on a tracking system.
      • Second part of the presentation: the presentation to the funders forum.
        • 45+6=51 Organisational members. Now 52 with Helmholtz Association.
        • Business model
          • Need to distinct: Work of RDA and business to support this work (forum, community to use, etc
          • This led us to define the core services of RDA (Running plenaries, collaboration tools, facilitate of the outputs of the groups (from TAB, OAB, etc.), endorse outputs, general operations.
          • Main cost categories: secretariat (Secretary General and staff-the only directly fundedd), travel for staff and governance bodies, plenaries, website and technical infrastructures, professional services for RDA Foundation (accountants, etc.), computer and office expenses, etc.
          • Estimated annual activities budget
            • Current and the projected one for the future, in terms of both FTEs and costs: currently around 7.5 FTEs (3.8 FTEs direct and more indirect) and ~1,5M USD. While future needs rise into something like 13,5 FTEs and 2,2M USD.
          • Funding strategy
            • Different funders have different interests that are being addressed by RDA: some funders broad interest, others more targeted NIST at standards, SLOAN at Ethics JISC at Community: mapping interests into services needed.
            • More direct support to the RDA Foundation: Direct control on personnel and website etc.
          • Current revenue sources for core services:
            • Main: European Commission, NSF and Australian government. Also NIST, JISC (UK), Japan support for P7, Organisastional membership dues, plenary registrations.
    • Council update - Fran Berman
      • Long council meetings. 3 times a year in person. And a number of calls. 2 at plenaries and 1 off-plenary. And this off-plenary was in Australia. Talked with local stakehodlers. Ross Wilkinson organised it. Importance of RDA and of presence in Australia.
      • Highlights:
        • Strategic issues:
          • Grown-up budgeting, harmonising the international and regional level
            • Template for international budget and harmonise the regional budgets. Allocations for each regional budget. US, Europe developing their budgets. Josh Greenberg helps in harmonisation.
          • Upcoming plenaries.
            • A lot of planning. Look out to P10 and P11. Plenaries are catalysts for the community. Need enough people to attend and encourage the right kind of jurisdictions. Also what we think about this week (IDW), but survey coming up.
          • Council elections:
            • Refresh 1/3 every year. Objective and strategic viewpoint from funders forum. This is moving to Council and community viewpoints. Nominating committee comes up with a slate. When starting it was fine getting people not familiar with RDA and its principles. But now we want to get people who are familiar. Developing of a description of what Council does. A model for the nominating committee. And this has to be done quickly. We will be replacing 3 members.
          • Committee reports:
            • Not discussed yet but we will do. Also what happens in Council vs. what happens in regions. Criteria for regional bids.
      • Questions:
        • Locations of next plenaries after Barcelina? Mark Parsons: Montreal in September 2017. University of Montreal is the host. To be announced at the end of this plenary. John Wood: need to think what happens after Montreal. Juan Bicarregui: Need to discuss whether we will do again a plenary together with SciDataCon in 2 years from now. Mark Parsons: Meeting with ICSU Executive Committee: They want to go south: Latin America or Africa.
        • Mark Parsons: Send slides to Fotis: Open but not open! Disclaimer. Discretion.
        • Fran Berman: Got Jisc money two days after Brexit.
    • TAB update - Andrew Treloar
      • TAB elections - renewal process.
        • 4 members stepping down: Simon Cox, Peter Fox, Rainer Stotzka, and Peter Wittenburg (earlier). Vote for TAB!  Geographical criteria: underrepresented in some regions. Good for TAB to represent the range of diversity we have in our membership. But it gets noticed. So it would be good to get broad memberships.
      • TAB reviews:
        • Spent some time to review our workflows and improve the how and the speed of things. Community, OA and TAB review now in parallel: plus extra TAB comments. This process works much better. Also working with Stefanie Kethers on workflows: Diagrams were a  ball of spaghetti: quite complex. Simplifying it. The process relies on people being available and not in holidays. We are working on an automatic system. Now google sheets. Lynn Yarmey providing wonderful support from secretariat as TAB liaison.
      • Clustering of RDA WGs/IGs
        • First clustering performed by Beth Pale, when RDA was much simpler. Another go now. Internal LOG group :landscape overview. But different dimensions: a. how categorized and b. how they are connected. As a lot in common. Mapping these connections and identify new ones, is part of the TAB role. We will explain this on Saturday (TAB-Chairs meeting). And OAB would like to see the next version, I would be very happy. On the relation with the RDA Europe Atlas of Knowledge (AoK): Took me a while to answer: AoK is focused on outputs while the TAB LOG is focused on the groups.
      • OAB feedback:
        • Would like to hear from OA now or at some point: If there are things TAB could do to help you. Collaborate more closely?
    • Questions - Comments (for all 3 presentations-bodies)
      • Leif Laaksonen: We need better KPIs for the groups and outputs. The number of members not so good. Mark Parsons: there is a monthly ppt, including other stuff, like recommendations. Andrew Treloar: The really significant is the outputs. But it does not hurt showing how the numbers are going up. You can show a lot in one slide. Andrew: Growring steadily: momentum.
      • Gail Clement: On production of outputs: Thrilled about intellectual contributions, production of outputs. Take home message: polishing support needed. E.g. to polish the legal supporting output. In kind support for such things? Fran Berman: We have a stretched secretariat. Important to understand how you are doing it. Collect best practices. Gail Clement: Investment in one template is important. Common denominator. Standard visual identity or other stuff. For outputs: Glossary, hyperlinks. Publishing skills. E-mail the source file or guidelines. Action: Raise this with the communications committee.
      • Matthew Viljoen: Questions on current and future budget: Future means a couple of years. And also how much is fixed and how much based on the volume of RDA members. Mark Parsons: A big part is fixed: maybe 75%. More important the number of groups vs. no of users. Area directors issue came up again. Trying to align: budgeting is really complex. Different FTE across the globe.
      • Jason Haga: Clear need for a director of operations as a single point person. Mark Parsons: Yes, step in this direction: Stefanie Kethers now took up such a role in the secreatariat. 60% of her international time. And also working on a business development plan: Services vs. the work. More need a business manager. I spent a lot of time on accounting and other business issues and Fotis also. Need professional help.
      • Christoph Bruch: Regarding the point of Gail Clement: I believe that the secretariat should not directly involved helping on the WG/IGs. 
  3. OAB Members short introduction - 5',
    • Each member shortlly introduced her/himself. 
  4. OAB private meeting updates - 5'
    • There was an OAB private meeting during lunch. The main points were the following:
      • OAB composition:
        • OAB has 12 seats; 10 are filled. Another 2 seats from Industry. Next election in Barcelona
      • Role of OA.
      • V&E discussed in open meeting
        • Living document. Continue to appreciate your comments.
      • Meetings at plenaries
        • Do we need two meetings? Consensus was no. One meeting, by invitation (non OA members need to get an invitation to attend).
  5. OA Value & Engagement (closed part): Document available for review here - 15'
    • Skipped, as it was discussed at length at the Open Meeting.
  6. The role of OA in Expert Commentary and Adoptability: Process and Tools, Amy Nurnberger - 30'
    • Minutes - Slides
      • Amy Nurnberger: Role of commentary
        • Commentary for two main areas:
          • Group case statements and outputs.Prior to recognition and endorsment respectively.
          • Group case statements:
            • Fit & Focus of proposed group
            • Deliverables: Practical? Applicable?
            • ▪Membership: Right people? Organisations?
            • Impact: Is this needed? Will it be adopted?
            • ▪Adoptability assessment
          • Outputs:
            • Are you an adopter? Would you be?
            • Fulfilling need: What problems did it/would it solve for you?
            • Status of adoption: Pilot --> Production
            • Did/Would you need to modify? How?
            • Overall experience
            • Furtherance of RDA mission
        • Need to record the OA expertise. See survey below (pilot version in google forms to be uploaded to the RDA website)
        • Questions -Comments:
          • Mark Parsons: You, as Organisational members lead this, but you can delegate to others in your organisations.
          • Leif Laaksonen: What do we get for being a reviewer? Some recognition? Mark Parsons: Your inputs most important for a Council decision. But have been discussing this in the calls. Not easy. Leif Laaksonen: Similar for paper reviews? Gail and Laurel: Use of ORCID. How? Category in ORCID. Worked with Pablons in getting all this. Recognition in the opening plenary. Mark: We can’t buy sweaters!
    • Material
      • OA Commentator expertise and interest: DRAFT survey (google forms). Also sub-categories of expertise in similar document (alignment required). After draft survey approved to be uploaded in the RDA website (RDA login to be required)
      • OA Adoption report updated based on August-September meeting
      • OA Commentary for new WGs - Document
  7. Scheduling of OA meetings - 5'
    • f2f meetings not clashing with other meetings:
      • Juan Bicarregui: It was suggested that OA meetings, should not clash with WG/IG metings. But this may imply that you travel before so that the OA meetings take just before or after. Decision. 
    • Teleconferences
      • Decision: Monthly cycle (one per month), rotating timezones.
  8. Other Business - 5'
    • Fran Berman: great meeting, excellent level of discussions and maturity. Great stuff! Growing up!!
    • Leif Laaksonen: Is there a group thinking about how to improve and develop better plenaries? Success factors in Europe: the social aspect/platform perspective of RDA is also very important. If we fully employ the social platform. Broad range of expertise in this platform. And very good to better link these 3 (CODATA, ICSU and RDA) instead of separate.
    • Laurel Haak: Why don’t you three work on this together. Andrew: intentionally organic. We do this in TAB. In the review process: this overlaps with this group. Talk with them. Second part: sessions proposals for plenaries. Go back to this to hold a joint session or not clash. Mark: balance out. Compulsory for joint meeting two plenaries ago. And wasted time as each presented what they are doing. Fran Berman: Area directors idea? Andrew: IETF idea of areas. Coordination of areas. Interesting. Last time looked at this we said that it worked in IETF as they are narrow technical. But we are doing more intertwingled. Different kind of WGs. Coming up with areas is difficult. Different dimensions. More specialisation in TAB.
    • Hans Pfeiffenberger: Helmholtz Association: Ambassadorial role important. RDA in Germany. Added value for an OA: announce job openings for RDA related topics.
    • John Wood: Regional/area director thing: Each area had to have one academic and one industrial, I was one of these members. It worked really well. Two or three things in the region. Worked closely with industrialists. And also industry interested.
  9. Group Photo

Original agenda

Plenary 8, Denver

Thursday 15 September 2016, 16:00-17:30 (local time)

Closed meeting - Room Spruce (Tower Building - Mezzanine Level)

 

Objectives of the closed part of the meeting:

Our members exclusive session with council and TAB representatives at Plenary 8 is scheduled on Thursday, 15 September 2016 from 16:30 to 18:00 (Denver local time). We hope you plan to attend. It is a chance for OA members to discuss among themselves and with the other bodies about how RDA is running. Our agenda will include an update from the RDA Council and the Funders Forum meetings, an internal discussion on Value & Engagement and on the Expert Commentary and Adoptability.

Chair - Juan Bicarregui

  1. Call to Order and introduction, 5'
  2. Update from Council and Funders Forum (for information and discussion) 15', Fran Berman, RPI, USA - John Wood, ACU, UK, RDA Council and Amy Nurnberger, Juan Bicarregui, OA co-chairs and Mark Parsons, RDA Secretary General
  3. OAB Members short introduction - 5', Each member to shortly introduce her/himself. 
  4. OAB updates - 5'
  5. OA Value & Engagement (closed part): Document available for review here - 15'
  6. The role of OA in Expert Commentary and Adoptability: Process and Tools, Amy Nurnberger - 30'
    • Templates
      • OA Commentator expertise and interest: DRAFT survey (google forms). For approval. See also sub-categories of expertise in similar document (alignment required). After draft survey approved to be uploaded in the RDA website (RDA login to be required)
      • OA Adoption report updated based on August-September meeting -  For discussion
      • OA Commentary for new WGs - Document
  7. Scheduling of OA meetings - 5'
    • During plenaries (not clashing with group meetings?)
    • Teleconferences
  8. Other Business - 5'
  9. Group Photo