[Fotis Karagiannis]

Meeting 23-March-2016, 21:00 UTC
Draft minutes, Fotis Karayannis v1.0 24-March-2016
Present: Fran, John, Josh, Ross and Fotis (Secretariat)

1. Introductions/Thoughts
a. Fran:
i. Ross’s paper touches on the work of 3 groups: Funders forum, financial and sustainability sub-committees.
ii. Important time to act: if we don’t act strategically, more important repercussions than we thought.
iii. Funders eye is important, e.g. that Josh has (this came up at dinner with Danny).
iv. Explains her note (is it the RDA US sustainability paper?)
1. There are different terrains/regions in RDA, but we need coordination, because there is a common goal.
2. We can get countries paying, but this may not be clear (what do we consider a country?) nor enough. Need to sort this out. It should make sense for all involved.
3. Government agencies can possibly undertake some organisational tasks (to pay less cash?)
4. Try to monetize things better, e.g. plenaries, and save/cut down expenses
5. Need to understand what it means to have regional leadership. Each region is accountable to their funders. Without coordination across regions, not go very far.
b. Ross:
i. We should have Mark to go through the paper/tables re. finances
ii. The idea for the paper was to have some line items for discussions. But also to understand the total funding and the different strands i. grant funding (such as EC, NSF, Australian). ii. Plenary funding iii. Program/project funding. Put the numbers down to be contested. We can’t expect central financial support to a central organization forever. Still, the Australian government can put money in this way.
iii. We need greater cross-regional visibility. Appropriate discussions across regions.
iv. Asks Josh for comments (overall view).
c. Josh:
i. General view: Not changed my views since Tokyo discussions.
ii. Overall from funders perspectives what you say makes sense: need to get all the budget lines (staff, plenaries and other).
iii. The thing I am missing: to get a sense of the activities supported from secretariat staff. E.g. how much time from secretariat goes to the plenaries. Fran: I asked Mark who has a good view, and he also asked for updates during the Tokyo secretariat meeting. The RDA secretariat may be over-qualified (many with PhDs, while in many cases more practical things needed). Fotis: Yes, Mark asked all secretariat members to report on their activities and their time at the Tokyo secretariat meeting. So has an updated view now. And there were some updates from some members. But also other related things discussed: e.g. Fotis around 40% but probably only half goes to RDA Global, as we have different EU internal stuff, including writing deliverables.  So regions should try to concentrate efforts of secretariat members. Also we should try to engage an administrative assistant, with whom all secretariat members will benefit and avoid spending much time for trivial things.

Mark’s comment after the meeting:

Global contributions as recorded in Secretariat Tokyo meeting:
Fotis: 20%
Yolanda: 50%
Herman: 30%
Timea: 50%
Hilary: works min. 50%, but is supported way less
Open RDA/US: 50%?
Mark: 100%
Total: 3.2 – 3.5 FTE (.5 open)

Addition from Stefanie: 

Stefanie: 60% (used to be 40%).

d. John:
i. EU funding secured for another 2-3 years (around 2020 as there is another call for RDA already planned).
ii. After that may have to change the approach and get other grants, as with SKA. Jean-Claude Burgelman from DG RTD/European Commission said that there could be something like a 10% tax for RDA in other grants.
iii. Agree that we need to hear the actual costs. And yes, would be good to involve also admin staff, not PhDs. Focus on such exercises. We may have to jump on different pots of money, but also do strategic moves and cut down on some costs.
iv. Political difficulties in Europe, but again secured funding for a few more years.
2. Discussion
a. Fran: Another important issue is that the ones who work for Mark have other supervisors in their organisations.
b.  Ross: What are the things that we currently do and what we will do: Run WG/IGs and plenaries. And anything else in support of all these. If we go the SKA path (which will take 10% of Mark’s time) and we get 10 projects, then they will eat up all of Mark’s time (although they will pay his salary). So not very good approach. But unless we have a budget, we want have a good view.
c. John: Mark wants to engage in SKA because strategic for RDA. I am also in the same situation. Why I am spending time for RDA? Because it is linked with the mission of my organisation. The same should be with SKA. But SKA adds to the RDA visibility. If the project has no added-value then a bad deal.
d. Fran:  We would like to get engaged in the SKAs because it is attractive for RDA. But maybe another person acting as PI and RDA getting the benefits without much of Mark’s time being spent. Ross: But who is the other person? Not easy to deal with this situation. There may be tension between the two organisations (the home organization of the other person and the RDA Foundation/project?).
e.  Josh: How many years will the SKA project run? John: Long term but the first project around 3 years. Josh: If 3 years, ~1 month a year of Mark’s time.
f.  Ross: The principal secretariat cost for plenaries is Hilary’s time. Herman is dealing with the groups and maybe more free. So Herman may work on such grants (such as SKA) and Mark only in high-level meetings. But it should not eat up 10% of Mark’s time. 

Mark’s comment after the meeting: Agree. It shouldn’t be much of my time. I wonder about looking beyond Secretariat, e.g. Francoise for SKA. How to arrange payment is the challenge.

Josh: It may be that they need the high-level person. But overall I agree. Ross: High-caliber secretariat members (with PhDs) can work on such projects.
g. Fotis: The RDA Foundation can sign a framework agreement with a list of other organisations (broader/long term agreement than single projects) so as to use resources (secretariat or other members) from the other organisationss in upcoming projects (such as SKA). In the EU framework programmes there is a legal way to do this: the RDA Foundation is a partner of the Consortium and the other organisations are engaged as “third parties” (standard EU term). So the RDA Foundation can start preparing for such cases and setup all these agreements. 

Mark’s comment after the meeting: This would be useful. Fotis, please pursue this.

3. Main points
a. Ross: Summary of main points:
i. Need of reframing the RDA budget towards the future
ii. Need of coordination discussions across regions and get input on financial details.
iii. Invite the financial committee and get their views.
iv. Need to come up with guidelines for program funding and agree on some directions to pursue. Appropriate arrangements/agreements in a form to execute the programs effectively.  

-Meeting ended after one hour-

 

Discussion