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/.

Re:

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #123354

    Jamie Shiers
    Member

    So it seems a simple solution is possible:
    If all RDA* activities provide regular (e.g. monthly) succinct reports into the OAB, this can then be disseminated to the entire OA.
    Cheers, Jamie
    On 03 Feb 2016, at 22:07, swolff wrote:
    “A bigger issue is coordinating efforts across regions. If OAB found that to be a helpful role, I would be thrilled.”
    I think that If the OAB is viewed as solely an input channel, then I see no advantage for it to be involved in coordination.
    If however, as I have previously argued, OAB is tasked to be one of many output channels (perhaps the default), then I see a very useful role for it in ensuring that all OA members (1) receive exactly the same wording (in the default language of course but I’m not certain what we could do about that), and moreover (2) receive it at (approximately) the same instant. I.e., OAB could make the dissemination of “official” information to the OA about as egalitarian as is feasible.
    Best,
    -steve
    On Feb 2, 2016, at 15:12, Mark Parsons
    wrote:
    Yes, thanks Herman. There is confusion.
    We will work to provide more information more quickly to OAB. Also in a periodic. more digestible way. Fotis, let’s you and I discuss.
    A bigger issue is coordinating efforts across regions. If OAB found that to be a helpful role, I would be thrilled.
    cheers,
    -m.
    On Feb 2, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Jamie Shiers wrote:
    Hi Herman,
    Thanks a lot for the clarifications.
    I have not added anything below but did not know about the proposed / likely date change of the DM workshop.
    (I got mails asking people to fill in a Doodle for a con-call but nothing about a possible change of date).
    Shall I therefore release the room booking that I have made for the week of April 25?
    Cheers, Jamie
    On 02 Feb 2016, at 08:27, Herman Stehouwer wrote:
    Hi Jamie,
    Please allow me to jump in and provide my perspective on the below.
    Regardless of that we seem to be having too much confusion in general, so things will need to improve.
    On 02/02/16 06:05, Jamie Shiers wrote:
    Attached is the RDA position paper. Reading it again, it does say RDA Europe. I am not sure that the unsuspecting reader is necessarily aware of the nuances that this implies. (Do we have to think of the RDA like neutrinos, with different flavours?)
    This is a position paper from Peter.
    I was not aware of this paper so far but it reads like the standard fare.
    I would hesitate to claim it is an RDA position paper (or even an RDA Europe position paper), but I see where this comes from.
    Another example is the WG+IG chairs meeting. Yes, it was announced that the meeting after Gaithersburg would be announced there and presumably it was. And yes, it was announced to the WG+IG lists. However, I am simply suggesting that this be *also* announced (and minuted) to the OAB. (Members of the OA(B) may or may not be on the chairs list, may or may not be interested and may or may not have some management or other role regarding members of their organisations that are chairs. And even if none of the above I would still include it).
    Noted and yes the OAB should be notified.
    Recently, there was an RDA EU newsletter. This referred to a number of regional events that had already taken place. For a global project, such as WLCG, having information *before* is much more useful. One can then suggest to partners local to a given event that they may wish to participate. Or not.
    That would be useful. Regional events are usually just announced in the regions themselves. Often we do not know of them either. The only future regional event I know of is the next Germany one (sometime in May, date and location still to be decided).
    RDA EU (yes, Juan, looks like you are mainly right) has organised 3 workshops, the first in Garching, the 2nd at CERN and the 3rd (?) recently (?) in Paris(???)
    The Paris one is still in the future, Francoise is working on it.
    There was supposed to be continuity between these workshops with e.g. the host of one being invited to the subsequent one.
    There is still supposed to be this continuity.
    I am not directly involved with this round, but I assume this hasn’t changed.
    This aside, isn’t the occurrence of these workshops, their themes and outcomes also of interest and relevance to the OA(B)?
    I would say yes.
    There was also the RDA EU BoD meeting mentioned by Fab. What is this? Some sort of RDA EU OAB? Maybe its “secret”? (openness?)
    Nothing secret about it. It is a meeting of the RDA Europe consortium partners with some others for continuity. It deals with the daily high-level stuff.
    The DM workshop being organised(?) at CERN in April, possibly combined with an RDA EU SyA (another RDA EU OAB?)
    Helen, Rob, and myself are still on it. It won’t be April though (you did get our emails last week right?), due to some issues. I do not know about the state of these SyA meetings anymore.
    Oh yes, and RDA P8 in Denver. I am trying to figure out the exact dates from the various non-RDA mails (quite a few) that I have been getting and figure it is probably 15-16 September +/- a day or so. Should I have to reverse engineer this? Can’t it just be “announced” (eventually just to OA(B) if its preliminary or to everybody?)
    This one is a bit odd, it is an “International Data Week” together with SciDataCon (Codata and WDS).
    RDA working meetings will indeed be 15 and 16 september. However, additionally we have a shared plenary on wednesday the 14th (with Codata and WDS).
    The monday and tuesday should also be interesting to attend.
    There are probably other examples that others have but I have probably upset enough people by now.
    I don’t see anything that is upsetting. Just confusion.
    Cheers,
    Herman
    PS. If you are in Rome this week we should catch up.
    On 01 Feb 2016, at 18:08, Mark Parsons
    wrote:
    We can certainly do that, but I’m not aware of any RDA events or position papers either. Can you provide more specifics?
    cheers,
    -m.
    On Feb 1, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Jamie Shiers wrote:
    Dear all,
    I did not have the time to work on this merge during the past week and this week will be difficult too.
    However, I continue to hear of
    a) events that start with RDA
    b) “position papers” on behalf of “the RDA”
    which AFAIK have never been discussed / announced to the OAB.
    Nor was the date / location of the next WG+IG chairs meeting and indeed I have more info about Boulder/Denver from other sources than the RDA.
    I don’t think that this equates to “the value” that we should expect to see.
    Maybe a standing point on the agenda (+ minutes) would be a recap of recent / imminent meetings and publications?
    (There’s still time for next week).
    Cheers, Jamie
    On 20 Jan 2016, at 06:41, Jamie Shiers wrote:
    Hi Amy and Mark,
    Yes, the idea is to come up with a single, concise document once all viewpoints have been heard and/or we reach some sort of consensus.
    I may have an opportunity to do something on this next week.
    After that, it is going to be very difficult before the end of February due to some deliverables due in that time frame. (Including a DMP for an H2020 project, self-certification of ~10 sites based on ISO 16363, which admittedly could slip a bit, but we have a workshop specifically on these two points in February in any case).
    So it would be useful for anyone who hasn’t yet commented to make their views know as soon as possible!
    Cheers, Jamie
    On 19 Jan 2016, at 19:56, Amy L. Nurnberger wrote:
    Hi, Jamie,
    Thank you for putting these thoughts together. There are some interesting points of intersection with the OAB Scoping document: https://rd-alliance.org/filedepot?fid=522 . Can we combine the earlier scoping document with Jamie’s draft in a document that both sets expectations for engagement of OA members in RDA and lays out how how engagement of OA members in RDA results in value for their organizations? I advocate for a single document covering these areas, because without the engagement there is limited value.
    Best,
    Amy
    _________________________________
    Amy Nurnberger, Research Data Manager
    Center for Digital Research and Scholarship
    Columbia University / 212.851.2827
    E-mail: ***@***.***
    ORCID: 0000-0002-5931-072X
    Twitter: @DataAtCU
    On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Mark Parsons
    wrote:
    Hi Jamie,
    I generally like these comments, and the short answer to your last question is yes (although it may be more than two pages). I think if we capture some of your suggestions and some of the specific strategies we discussed, we could say “done”. Lets talk in the next telecon about implementing some of your meeting ideas in Tokyo.
    cheers,

Log in to reply.