Skip to main content

Notice

The new RDA web platform is still being rolled out. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: https://rda-login.wicketcloud.com/users/confirmation. Please report bugs, broken links and provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Stay updated about the web site milestones at https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-web-platform-upcoming-features-and-functionalities/.

Discussion of the Strategy Subcommittee documents by OAB during its meeting today

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #120192

    Francoise Genova
    Participant

    Dear colleagues,
    The OAB was meeting today and the meeting agenda included a discussion
    of the three documents the Strategy Subcommittee submitted to RfC. Some
    of the attendents had posted comments (some of them today) on line and I
    encouraged them to continue to do so so that we keep track. I also
    promised to pass my notes from the meeting to the Subcommittee, hence
    this message. Juan (as well as Hilary who was proposed as a substitute
    at the last minute) could not attend, but we addressed the ‘standards
    body’ document anyway because I told them that we want to produce a
    final version soon – I had in mind that our next meeting would be early
    February, but I am afraid I was wrng and it will be later, which is a
    bit too bad because there is some momentum in what we do.
    The attendance were is agreement with our approach, and provided several
    comments I find useful:
    * Training & Education: They agree with the approach that RDA supports
    the activity but does not own the process. The comparison with
    Research Repository Certification (owned by DSA and WDS) was found
    appropriate, and it was also found appropriate that RDA does not
    enter into a competition with organisations for which training and
    education is a main aim (and a source of income). We were warned not
    to be too prescriptive, and allow the current approach to evolve in
    the future. I agree that it will be useful to add ‘the current
    approach is’ rather than providing a statement which look like it
    should stay true forever. It was also suggested that we should
    propose as a strategy in the domain. The proposed strategy was that
    RDA support internship to form the next generation. My answer,
    supported by Amy, was that this is a possible role for the regional
    projects if they wish/can because one needs to know local situations
    to efficiently decide on internship, not a role for RDA Global.
    * Strategy of interconnections: People agree with the statements but
    the general feeling is that it is difficult to understand why the
    paper exist when reading it. The feeling was really widely shared so
    I think that we have to have a further look with that in mind. The
    advice is to structure the document better starting with what the
    issue is. It was also noted that our approach is good because this
    positioning does not come in competition with other organisations
    (the Belmont Forum was cited) but allows for finding the best way to
    work together.
    * Standardisation body: Raphael Ritz reminded the discussion of the
    early Task Force which set up RDA policy on the subject. One
    interesting comment is that some of our outputs may not have a
    natural host among the existing standards bodies – what will we do
    if we think that they have the potential to be standards. The
    comment is posted on the RfC page (as well as my own comment on a
    possible fourth recommendation following the December Chair
    Collaboration meeting).
    Finally, OAB members strongly recommend that we give an explicit updated
    limit date to post comments to the RfC. I told them we would need the
    comments within two weeks. This may be too early if our meeting is later
    than what I had thought but I tend to agree that we need an explicit
    closure date for the RfC and I also think that it should not be too far
    from the original one. We have to have enough time to take the late
    comments into account before our next meeting.
    That’s all for the moment
    With my best wishes for this new year
    Francoise

  • Author
    Replies
  • #132152

    Mark Parsons
    Member

    Thanks Francoise. These comments should be posted to the RfC.
    I can rewrite the first paragraph of the strategy of interconnections document to better explain the problem. Would that be helpful?
    Finally, they are right. We need to close the RfC soon and offer our final recommendations to Council.
    cheers,
    -m.
    On Jan 12, 2017, at 09:28, Francoise Genova wrote:
    Dear colleagues,
    The OAB was meeting today and the meeting agenda included a discussion of the three documents the Strategy Subcommittee submitted to RfC. Some of the attendents had posted comments (some of them today) on line and I encouraged them to continue to do so so that we keep track. I also promised to pass my notes from the meeting to the Subcommittee, hence this message. Juan (as well as Hilary who was proposed as a substitute at the last minute) could not attend, but we addressed the ‘standards body’ document anyway because I told them that we want to produce a final version soon – I had in mind that our next meeting would be early February, but I am afraid I was wrng and it will be later, which is a bit too bad because there is some momentum in what we do.
    The attendance were is agreement with our approach, and provided several comments I find useful:
    * Training & Education: They agree with the approach that RDA supports the activity but does not own the process. The comparison with Research Repository Certification (owned by DSA and WDS) was found appropriate, and it was also found appropriate that RDA does not enter into a competition with organisations for which training and education is a main aim (and a source of income). We were warned not to be too prescriptive, and allow the current approach to evolve in the future. I agree that it will be useful to add ‘the current approach is’ rather than providing a statement which look like it should stay true forever. It was also suggested that we should propose as a strategy in the domain. The proposed strategy was that RDA support internship to form the next generation. My answer, supported by Amy, was that this is a possible role for the regional projects if they wish/can because one needs to know local situations to efficiently decide on internship, not a role for RDA Global.
    * Strategy of interconnections: People agree with the statements but the general feeling is that it is difficult to understand why the paper exist when reading it. The feeling was really widely shared so I think that we have to have a further look with that in mind. The advice is to structure the document better starting with what the issue is. It was also noted that our approach is good because this positioning does not come in competition with other organisations (the Belmont Forum was cited) but allows for finding the best way to work together.
    * Standardisation body: Raphael Ritz reminded the discussion of the early Task Force which set up RDA policy on the subject. One interesting comment is that some of our outputs may not have a natural host among the existing standards bodies – what will we do if we think that they have the potential to be standards. The comment is posted on the RfC page (as well as my own comment on a possible fourth recommendation following the December Chair Collaboration meeting).
    Finally, OAB members strongly recommend that we give an explicit updated limit date to post comments to the RfC. I told them we would need the comments within two weeks. This may be too early if our meeting is later than what I had thought but I tend to agree that we need an explicit closure date for the RfC and I also think that it should not be too far from the original one. We have to have enough time to take the late comments into account before our next meeting.
    That’s all for the moment
    With my best wishes for this new year
    Francoise

    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/council-strategy-subcommittee/post/dis
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/54992

  • #132150

    Le 25/01/2017 00:10, Parsons, Mark a écrit :
    > Thanks Francoise. These comments should be posted to the RfC.
    Some of them are already. If we want to post ‘OA comments’ I have to
    check with Amy & Fotis beforehand.
    >
    > I can rewrite the first paragraph of the strategy of interconnections
    > document to better explain the problem. Would that be helpful?
    yes please
    >
    > Finally, they are right. We need to close the RfC soon and offer our
    > final recommendations to Council.
    I agree. It would be good to close the RfC at the end of the month,
    keeping a link to it from the Subcommittee page so people can see what
    happened.
    Cheers
    Francoise
    >
    > cheers,
    >
    > -m.
    >> On Jan 12, 2017, at 09:28, Francoise Genova
    >> <***@***.***
    >> > wrote:
    >>
    >> Dear colleagues,
    >>
    >> The OAB was meeting today and the meeting agenda included a
    >> discussion of the three documents the Strategy Subcommittee submitted
    >> to RfC. Some of the attendents had posted comments (some of them
    >> today) on line and I encouraged them to continue to do so so that we
    >> keep track. I also promised to pass my notes from the meeting to the
    >> Subcommittee, hence this message. Juan (as well as Hilary who was
    >> proposed as a substitute at the last minute) could not attend, but we
    >> addressed the ‘standards body’ document anyway because I told them
    >> that we want to produce a final version soon – I had in mind that our
    >> next meeting would be early February, but I am afraid I was wrng and
    >> it will be later, which is a bit too bad because there is some
    >> momentum in what we do.
    >>
    >> The attendance were is agreement with our approach, and provided
    >> several comments I find useful:
    >>
    >> * Training & Education: They agree with the approach that RDA
    >> supports the activity but does not own the process. The
    >> comparison with Research Repository Certification (owned by DSA
    >> and WDS) was found appropriate, and it was also found appropriate
    >> that RDA does not enter into a competition with organisations for
    >> which training and education is a main aim (and a source of
    >> income). We were warned not to be too prescriptive, and allow the
    >> current approach to evolve in the future. I agree that it will be
    >> useful to add ‘the current approach is’ rather than providing a
    >> statement which look like it should stay true forever. It was
    >> also suggested that we should propose as a strategy in the
    >> domain. The proposed strategy was that RDA support internship to
    >> form the next generation. My answer, supported by Amy, was that
    >> this is a possible role for the regional projects if they
    >> wish/can because one needs to know local situations to
    >> efficiently decide on internship, not a role for RDA Global.
    >> * Strategy of interconnections: People agree with the statements
    >> but the general feeling is that it is difficult to understand why
    >> the paper exist when reading it. The feeling was really widely
    >> shared so I think that we have to have a further look with that
    >> in mind. The advice is to structure the document better starting
    >> with what the issue is. It was also noted that our approach is
    >> good because this positioning does not come in competition with
    >> other organisations (the Belmont Forum was cited) but allows for
    >> finding the best way to work together.
    >> * Standardisation body: Raphael Ritz reminded the discussion of the
    >> early Task Force which set up RDA policy on the subject. One
    >> interesting comment is that some of our outputs may not have a
    >> natural host among the existing standards bodies – what will we
    >> do if we think that they have the potential to be standards. The
    >> comment is posted on the RfC page (as well as my own comment on a
    >> possible fourth recommendation following the December Chair
    >> Collaboration meeting).
    >>
    >> Finally, OAB members strongly recommend that we give an explicit
    >> updated limit date to post comments to the RfC. I told them we would
    >> need the comments within two weeks. This may be too early if our
    >> meeting is later than what I had thought but I tend to agree that we
    >> need an explicit closure date for the RfC and I also think that it
    >> should not be too far from the original one. We have to have enough
    >> time to take the late comments into account before our next meeting.
    >>
    >> That’s all for the moment
    >>
    >> With my best wishes for this new year
    >>
    >> Francoise
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> —
    >> Full post:
    >> https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/council-strategy-subcommittee/post/dis
    >> Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    >>
    >> Stop emails for this post:
    >> https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/54992
    >
    Le 25/01/2017 00:10, Parsons, Mark a écrit :
    > Thanks Francoise. These comments should be posted to the RfC.
    Some of them are already. If we want to post ‘OA comments’ I have to
    Le 25/01/2017 00:10, Parsons, Mark a écrit :
    > Thanks Francoise. These comments should be posted to the RfC.
    Some of them are already. If we want to post ‘OA comments’ I have to
    check with Amy & Fotis beforehand.
    >
    > I can rewrite the first paragraph of the strategy of interconnections
    > document to better explain the problem. Would that be helpful?
    Le 25/01/2017 00:10, Parsons, Mark a écrit :
    > Thanks Francoise. These comments should be posted to the RfC.
    Some of them are already. If we want to post ‘OA comments’ I have to
    check with Amy & Fotis beforehand.
    >
    > I can rewrite the first paragraph of the strategy of interconnections
    > document to better explain the problem. Would that be helpful?
    yes please
    >
    > Finally, they are right. We need to close the RfC soon and offer our
    > final recommendations to Council.
    I agree. It would be good to close the RfC at the end of the month,
    keeping a link to it from the Subcommittee page so people can see what
    happened.
    Cheers

Log in to reply.