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: [rda-oab][value-engagement-oa]

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #123334

    Mark Parsons
    Participant

    I’m sorry. I was too loose with my terminology. I meant we would compile information for distribution to the whole OA with no need for an intermediate OAB step.. The Secretariat can be the compiler, we already try and share RDA* activities internally. We can then deliver a “newsletter” before every one or two OAB calls and Fotis and I, the TAB rep, and others can answer questions during the call or at least find out additional information as needed. I also prepare periodic updates for Council. These are pretty high level, but I could share most of these with the OAB too.
    There has been increasing desire and need for more information sharing and collaboration across the RDA/Regions. Having the OAB make the request to the Regions in the manner that Steve suggests would carry some weight and help with responsiveness. I think it also makes sense for the OA/OAB to be a nexus of regional coordination. Just like it is organisations that need to adopt RDA recommendations, organisations also need to coordinate across geopolitical lines as much, if not more, than individuals.
    cheers,
    -m.
    On Feb 4, 2016, at 3:42 AM, swolff wrote:
    Jamie – Yes; thank you! I agree (almost).
    Some (many?) RDA* activities might find even that level of reporting onerous, and the OAB receptor weary of a surfeit of “nothing to report” reports – or, worse, tire of sorting through routine “activity” reports to find the “accomplishment” or “heads up” reports.
    But if the Council were to tell the RDA* activities “Whenever you have done, or are doing, or contemplate doing, something that affects the organisational members, or that you’d just like them to know about, send it to and the OAB will disseminate”, then the reporting could be left to the discretion of the activities.
    Of course there may be some activities for which monthly reports to OAB are appropriate as you suggest, and that would be fine too.
    I do think however, that in return for such a Council dispensation, the OAB should accept the obligation of a monthly (bi-monthly?) report to the organisational members.
    Best,
    -steve
    On Feb 4, 2016, at 3:05 AM, Jamie Shiers wrote:
    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,
    -m.
    On Jan 14, 2016, at 1:02 AM, Jamie Shiers wrote:
    Dear all,
    I think that we might even be converging on a few points regarding the “value”.
    It could even be titled “What is the RDA OA(B) That We Want to See?”
    – Influence: we want (and RDA needs) it to have influence on the way RDA is run in all senses;
    – Information: the OA could / should get timely and/or “privileged” information that may be inappropriate to make available to ~4000 “unknown” people (this could be technical information, advance information on possible workshops or other events etc etc)
    – Input: the OA is uniquely positioned to provide essential input from committed organisations / projects worldwide. Maybe there should be a regular OA input session either as a pre-plenary and/or as a separate event? (The latter may be better and could eventually be combined with WG chairs meetings).
    As part of the above, the OA F2F meetings could include a report from the Os – not by one of the chairs – on the concerns and priorities of the Os at that time.
    I suspect if all of the above were true and were written into the mandate of the (new) OA then there would be many fewer questions about the “value” of the OA(B).
    Maybe there are some other keywords that we would like to include or maybe this is sufficient? (For now?)
    I also believe – as I mentioned earlier – that “engagement” follows naturally from perceived value (and empowerment).
    So can we distill this all down into a single, perhaps double-sided, sheet of A4 (or whatever size paper you use) and say “job done?” (At least ready for presentation to the next F2F?)
    (Mark: I will still look at your comments but it might require a further coffee first…)
    Cheers, from the snow, Jamie

    Full post:
    https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-advisory-board-oab-valu
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/50896

    Full post:
    https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-advisory-board-oab-valu
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/50971

    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-advisory-board-oab-valu
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/51137

    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-advisory-board-oab-valu
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/51138
    Attached files:
    rda_24_november_2015.pdf

    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-advisory-board-oab-valu
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/51153

    Dr. ir. Herman Stehouwer
    Max Planck Computing and Data Facility (MPCDF)
    RDA Secretariat
    ***@***.***
    0031-619258815
    Skype: herman.stehouwer.mpi

    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-advisory-board-oab-valu
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/51164

    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-advisory-board-oab-valu
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/51175

    Full post:
    https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-advisory-board-oab-valu
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/51184

Log in to reply.