OAB report to Council

21 May 2016
Groups audience: 

Hi, all,
Based on our most recent meetings and communications received from OA
members please find the proposed outline for the OAB report to Council:
1) Accounting of current members: 42 OA & 6 Affiliate
2) OAB membership & empty industry chairs
3) Current work:
3.1) Aforementioned industry seats,
3.1.1) Procedural discussion around filling industry chairs, i.e.
industry balance
3.2) OA Member value & engagement,
3.2.1) Translating OA scope to OA value
3.2.2) Presenting & effectively communicating OA/RDA value to member
organisations (and potential organisational members)
3.2.3) Creating attractive OA engagement opportunities
3.3) Process for OA commentary on proposed groups & outputs
3.3.1) Survey of expertise & interest
3.3.2) Clarity of process and communications
3.3.3) Commentator (?) rewards/recognition system
4) Items for Consideration
4.1) Commentator rewards/recognition system (to combat volunteer fatigue)
4.2) Plenary programming: Consider an informal OA networking reception
for the current organizational member representatives so that they could
talk amongst themselves about what they're getting out of the membership,
what they hoped to but aren't (yet), explore interests of collaboration,
etc.
4.3) Effectiveness of RDA in meeting Organisation goals/missions
4.3.1) Processes for WG formation that meet need to solve issues more
promptly
4.3.2) Engagement with pain points/solutions that organisations/funders
find engaging and useful to further their goals will increase
sustainability prospects and amplify value of RDA OA membership
4.3.3) Trust in, respect for, appreciation of volunteer expertise and
efforts
4.3.3.1) Broader participation: disciplinary & regional
4.3.3.2) Let WGs rise & fail
4.3.3.3) Transparent communication around processes
4.3.3.4) Observe common courtesy
4.3.4) Effective messaging to a variety of audiences
4.3.5) Responsiveness to community-based requests
Please note, items 4.2 & 4.3 arose from recent communications. Items under
4.3 are strongly related to discussions that have been underway in the
RDA/EU sphere.
Please let me know your thoughts as quickly as possible. The report will be
made to Council on Tuesday early afternoon (Melbourne time) = 3am UTC
Thank you for your prompt response.
Best,
Amy, OAB co-chair

  • Fabrizio Gagliardi's picture

    Author: Fabrizio Gagliardi

    Date: 21 May, 2016

    Good and complete summary. The most important point in my opinion you should discuss with the Council is how to demonstrate value to our OAB funding members. In an overall RDA organisation, which is intended to be voluntary and bottom up based, consequently providing all info to all the members in a wide and open way, it is not obvious to justify an yearly OAB fee, which for academic institutions like the one I represent is not negligible. A possible way could be to have an OAB representative as a full standing and voting member in the Council and an ex-officio OAB member in the TAB and all other important bodies. In this way we could pretend to have an important voice in the overall management of the RDA activities and justify to our members the value of the yearly investment, where the fee is only one aspect. We should also consider the time and efforts we spend to participate in the work, and the travelling cost and whatever else is involved.
    To advance on this, you might also propose to have a joint Council and OAB meeting in Denver. In other organisations, I am member off, the Council, or the relevant top executive body, has normally first a closed session followed by an extended session with other relevant components of the organisation. It might be good to try this also in RDA starting with Denver.
    The other point is the industrial participation. I would be personally against offering executive seats to industry for free, unless these industries step forward and show real engagement and financial investment in RDA. An industrial advisory board to collect input from industry might be a more appropriate way to engage for the time being.
    Thanks Amy for taking your time to represent us with the Council and best of luck,
    Fab
    - Show quoted text -From: anurnberger=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Amy Nurnberger
    Sent: 21 May 2016 06:17
    To: RDA Organisational Advisory Board (OAB) <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Subject: [rda-oab] OAB report to Council
    Hi, all,
    Based on our most recent meetings and communications received from OA members please find the proposed outline for the OAB report to Council:
    1) Accounting of current members: 42 OA & 6 Affiliate
    2) OAB membership & empty industry chairs
    3) Current work:
    3.1) Aforementioned industry seats,
    3.1.1) Procedural discussion around filling industry chairs, i.e. industry balance
    3.2) OA Member value & engagement,
    3.2.1) Translating OA scope to OA value
    3.2.2) Presenting & effectively communicating OA/RDA value to member organisations (and potential organisational members)
    3.2.3) Creating attractive OA engagement opportunities
    3.3) Process for OA commentary on proposed groups & outputs
    3.3.1) Survey of expertise & interest
    3.3.2) Clarity of process and communications
    3.3.3) Commentator (?) rewards/recognition system
    4) Items for Consideration
    4.1) Commentator rewards/recognition system (to combat volunteer fatigue)
    4.2) Plenary programming: Consider an informal OA networking reception for the current organizational member representatives so that they could talk amongst themselves about what they're getting out of the membership, what they hoped to but aren't (yet), explore interests of collaboration, etc.
    4.3) Effectiveness of RDA in meeting Organisation goals/missions
    4.3.1) Processes for WG formation that meet need to solve issues more promptly
    4.3.2) Engagement with pain points/solutions that organisations/funders find engaging and useful to further their goals will increase sustainability prospects and amplify value of RDA OA membership
    4.3.3) Trust in, respect for, appreciation of volunteer expertise and efforts
    4.3.3.1) Broader participation: disciplinary & regional
    4.3.3.2) Let WGs rise & fail
    4.3.3.3) Transparent communication around processes
    4.3.3.4) Observe common courtesy
    4.3.4) Effective messaging to a variety of audiences
    4.3.5) Responsiveness to community-based requests
    Please note, items 4.2 & 4.3 arose from recent communications. Items under 4.3 are strongly related to discussions that have been underway in the RDA/EU sphere.
    Please let me know your thoughts as quickly as possible. The report will be made to Council on Tuesday early afternoon (Melbourne time) = 3am UTC
    Thank you for your prompt response.
    Best,
    Amy, OAB co-chair

  • Amy Nurnberger's picture

    Author: Amy Nurnberger

    Date: 22 May, 2016

    Hi, Fabrizio,
    Thank you for sharing your perspectives. Unless anyone has any objections,
    I will work to include these points in the OA(B) report to Council.
    Best,
    Amy
    On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Fabrizio.Gagliardi <
    ***@***.***> wrote:

  • Aaron Addison's picture

    Author: Aaron Addison

    Date: 23 May, 2016

    Thanks Amy, thanks Fabrizio,
    I will second the need for a compelling value proposition, though I know such things can be obvious and yet hard to define. The topic has been raised numerous times over the past year, and is not likely to fade away until we have a story to tell in this facet of RDA.
    Good discussion, and thank you Amy for representing OAB at Council!
    Aaron
    Aaron Addison | Director, Scholarly Services
    University Libraries | Washington University in St. Louis
    1 Brookings Drive CB 1061 | St. Louis, MO 63130-4899
    T: 314 935 6198 | E:***@***.***
    ________________________________
    From: anurnberger=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of Amy Nurnberger <***@***.***>
    Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 4:16 AM
    To: Fabrizio.Gagliardi; RDA Organisational Assembly
    Cc: Francesca Arcara; Sergi Girona
    Subject: Re: [rda-oab] OAB report to Council
    Hi, Fabrizio,
    Thank you for sharing your perspectives. Unless anyone has any objections, I will work to include these points in the OA(B) report to Council.
    Best,
    Amy
    On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Fabrizio.Gagliardi <***@***.***> wrote:
    Good and complete summary. The most important point in my opinion you should discuss with the Council is how to demonstrate value to our OAB funding members. In an overall RDA organisation, which is intended to be voluntary and bottom up based, consequently providing all info to all the members in a wide and open way, it is not obvious to justify an yearly OAB fee, which for academic institutions like the one I represent is not negligible. A possible way could be to have an OAB representative as a full standing and voting member in the Council and an ex-officio OAB member in the TAB and all other important bodies. In this way we could pretend to have an important voice in the overall management of the RDA activities and justify to our members the value of the yearly investment, where the fee is o! nly one aspect. We should also consider the time and efforts we spend to participate in the work, and the travelling cost and whatever else is involved.
    To advance on this, you might also propose to have a joint Council and OAB meeting in Denver. In other organisations, I am member off, the Council, or the relevant top executive body, has normally first a closed session followed by an extended session with other relevant components of the organisation. It might be good to try this also in RDA starting with Denver.
    The other point is the industrial participation. I would be personally ! against offering executive seats to industry for free, unless these industries step forward and show real engagement and financial investment in RDA. An industrial advisory board to collect input from industry might be a more appropriate way to engage for the time being.
    Thanks Amy for taking your time to represent us with the Council and best of luck,
    Fab
    - Show quoted text -From: anurnberger=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:anurnberger=***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Amy Nurnberger
    Sent: 21 May 2016 06:17
    To: RDA Organisational Advisory Board (OAB) <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Subject: [rda-oab] OAB report to Council
    Hi, all,
    Based on our most recent meetings and communications received from OA members please find the proposed outline for the OAB report to Council:
    1) Accounting of current members: 42 OA & 6 Affiliate
    2) OAB membership & empty industry chairs
    3) Current work:
    3.1) Aforementioned industry seats,
    3.1.1) Procedural discussion around filling industry chairs, i.e. industry balance
    3.2) OA Member value & engagement,
    3.2.1) Translating OA scope to OA value
    3.2.2) Presenting & effectively communicating OA/RDA value to member organisations (and potential organisational members)
    3.2.3) Creating attractive OA engagement opportunities
    3.3) Process for OA commentary on proposed groups & outputs
    3.3.1) Survey of expertise & interest
    3.3.2) Clarity of process and communications
    3.3.3) Commentator (?) rewards/recognition system
    4) Items for Consideration
    4.1) Commentator rewards/recognition system (to combat volunteer fatigue)
    4.2) Plenary programming: Consider an informal OA networking reception for the c! urrent organizational member representatives so that they could talk amongst themselves about what they're getting out of the membership, what they hoped to but aren't (yet), explore interests of collaboration, etc.
    4.3) Effectiveness of RDA in meeting Organisation goals/missions
    4.3.1) Processes for WG formation that meet need to solve issues more promptly
    4.3.2) Engagement with pain points/solutions that organisations/funders find engaging and useful to further their goals will increase sustainability prospects and amplify value of RDA OA membership
    4.3.3) Trust in, respect for, appreciation of volunteer expertise and efforts
    4.3.3.1) Broader participation: disciplinary & regional
    4.3.3.2) Let WGs rise & fail
    4.3.3.3) Transparent communication around processes
    4.3.3.4) Observe common courtesy
    4.3.4) Effective messaging to a variety of audiences
    4.3.5) Responsiveness to community-based requests
    Please note, items 4.2 & 4.3 arose from recent communications. Items under 4.3 are strongly related to discussions that have been underway in the RDA/EU sphere.
    Please let me know your thoughts as quickly as possible. The report will be made to Council on Tuesday early afternoon (Melbourne time) = 3am UTC
    Thank you for your prompt response.
    Best,
    Amy, OAB co-chair
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-assembly/post/oab-repor...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/52463

  • Jamie Shiers's picture

    Author: Jamie Shiers

    Date: 23 May, 2016

    Dear all,
    I find Amy’s report very comprehensive and agree with the comments received so far.
    However, the “on-going battle” about (perceived) lack of transparency / consensus surrounding the forthcoming RDA “chairs” meeting in Nottingham is doing a lot of harm.
    (If you are not registered for that meeting you are probably not seeing the messages but there really is a problem - including getting some people to recognise that there is a problem).
    Cheers, Jamie
    On 23 May 2016, at 02:22, Aaron Addison <***@***.***> wrote:
    Thanks Amy, thanks Fabrizio,
    I will second the need for a compelling value proposition, though I know such things can be obvious and yet hard to define. The topic has been raised numerous times over the past year, and is not likely to fade away until we have a story to tell in this facet of RDA.
    Good discussion, and thank you Amy for representing OAB at Council!
    Aaron
    Aaron Addison | Director, Scholarly Services
    University Libraries | Washington University in St. Louis
    1 Brookings Drive CB 1061 | St. Louis, MO 63130-4899
    T: 314 935 6198 | E:***@***.***
    ________________________________
    From: anurnberger=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of Amy Nurnberger <***@***.***>
    Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 4:16 AM
    To: Fabrizio.Gagliardi; RDA Organisational Assembly
    Cc: Francesca Arcara; Sergi Girona
    Subject: Re: [rda-oab] OAB report to Council
    Hi, Fabrizio,
    Thank you for sharing your perspectives. Unless anyone has any objections, I will work to include these points in the OA(B) report to Council.
    Best,
    Amy
    On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Fabrizio.Gagliardi <***@***.***> wrote:
    Good and complete summary. The most important point in my opinion you should discuss with the Council is how to demonstrate value to our OAB funding members. In an overall RDA organisation, which is intended to be voluntary and bottom up based, consequently providing all info to all the members in a wide and open way, it is not obvious to justify an yearly OAB fee, which for academic institutions like the one I represent is not negligible. A possible way could be to have an OAB representative as a full standing and voting member in the Council and an ex-officio OAB member in the TAB and all other important bodies. In this way we could pretend to have an important voice in the overall management of the RDA activities and justify to our members the value of the yearly investment, where the fee is o! nly one aspect. We should also consider the time and efforts we spend to participate in the work, and the travelling cost and whatever else is involved.
    To advance on this, you might also propose to have a joint Council and OAB meeting in Denver. In other organisations, I am member off, the Council, or the relevant top executive body, has normally first a closed session followed by an extended session with other relevant components of the organisation. It might be good to try this also in RDA starting with Denver.
    The other point is the industrial participation. I would be personally ! against offering executive seats to industry for free, unless these industries step forward and show real engagement and financial investment in RDA. An industrial advisory board to collect input from industry might be a more appropriate way to engage for the time being.
    Thanks Amy for taking your time to represent us with the Council and best of luck,
    Fab
    - Show quoted text -From: anurnberger=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:anurnberger=***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Amy Nurnberger
    Sent: 21 May 2016 06:17
    To: RDA Organisational Advisory Board (OAB) <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Subject: [rda-oab] OAB report to Council
    Hi, all,
    Based on our most recent meetings and communications received from OA members please find the proposed outline for the OAB report to Council:
    1) Accounting of current members: 42 OA & 6 Affiliate
    2) OAB membership & empty industry chairs
    3) Current work:
    3.1) Aforementioned industry seats,
    3.1.1) Procedural discussion around filling industry chairs, i.e. industry balance
    3.2) OA Member value & engagement,
    3.2.1) Translating OA scope to OA value
    3.2.2) Presenting & effectively communicating OA/RDA value to member organisations (and potential organisational members)
    3.2.3) Creating attractive OA engagement opportunities
    3.3) Process for OA commentary on proposed groups & outputs
    3.3.1) Survey of expertise & interest
    3.3.2) Clarity of process and communications
    3.3.3) Commentator (?) rewards/recognition system
    4) Items for Consideration
    4.1) Commentator rewards/recognition system (to combat volunteer fatigue)
    4.2) Plenary programming: Consider an informal OA networking reception for the c! urrent organizational member representatives so that they could talk amongst themselves about what they're getting out of the membership, what they hoped to but aren't (yet), explore interests of collaboration, etc.
    4.3) Effectiveness of RDA in meeting Organisation goals/missions
    4.3.1) Processes for WG formation that meet need to solve issues more promptly
    4.3.2) Engagement with pain points/solutions that organisations/funders find engaging and useful to further their goals will increase sustainability prospects and amplify value of RDA OA membership
    4.3.3) Trust in, respect for, appreciation of volunteer expertise and efforts
    4.3.3.1) Broader participation: disciplinary & regional
    4.3.3.2) Let WGs rise & fail
    4.3.3.3) Transparent communication around processes
    4.3.3.4) Observe common courtesy
    4.3.4) Effective messaging to a variety of audiences
    4.3.5) Responsiveness to community-based requests
    Please note, items 4.2 & 4.3 arose from recent communications. Items under 4.3 are strongly related to discussions that have been underway in the RDA/EU sphere.
    Please let me know your thoughts as quickly as possible. The report will be made to Council on Tuesday early afternoon (Melbourne time) = 3am UTC
    Thank you for your prompt response.
    Best,
    Amy, OAB co-chair
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-assembly/post/oab-repor...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/52463
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-assembly/post/oab-repor...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/52463

  • Leif Laaksonen's picture

    Author: Leif Laaksonen

    Date: 23 May, 2016

    Dear Jamie,
    I am happy you have so much time to spend on shouting about the problem,
    which you could have addressed in detail and done something to in all the
    various groups you have been a part of in RDA over the years! I am sure all
    existing organisations can improve on transparency but I refuse to believe
    that there would exist an evil plot or group of people doing dirty things
    behind other people’s back.
    I don’t have all the details, do you Jamie have?, but to my understanding
    the person who has been voicing strongly a lack of democracy and
    transparency was a part of the WG/IG chairs meeting program committee! If he
    did not get his ideas or demands through does not necessary comply to
    neither a lack of democracy nor transparency.
    While I have great respect for training and educational aspects around data
    practitioners I don’t interpret it as neither undemocratic nor lack of
    transparency if RDA with its 4000 members does not (immediately) convert
    into a training and education organisation on the basis of a request from a
    handful of (albeit very good) persons. What RDA has achieved so far is a
    result of discussions, compromises and hard working by very many people, who
    might not (fully) share Jamie your views.
    RDA will most likely in 5 years time be something else than it is now as
    life and the research process is constantly changing. Most likely it will
    still be hard working as it is now but I don’t see how the discussion around
    the RDA chairs meeting in Nottingham will take us any way forward to answer
    challenges all the 4000 RDA members are trying to solve.
    Thanks,
    — leif
    From: <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of Jamie Shiers
    <***@***.***>
    Date: Monday, 23 May 2016 at 13:33
    To: Amy Nurnberger <***@***.***>, RDA Organisational Assembly
    <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Cc: "***@***.***" <***@***.***>, Aaron
    Addison <***@***.***>
    Subject: Re: [rda-oab] OAB report to Council
    Dear all,
    I find Amy’s report very comprehensive and agree with the comments
    received so far.
    However, the “on-going battle” about (perceived) lack of transparency /
    consensus surrounding the forthcoming RDA “chairs” meeting in Nottingham
    is doing a lot of harm.
    (If you are not registered for that meeting you are probably not seeing the
    messages but there really is a problem - including getting some people to
    recognise that there is a problem).
    Cheers, Jamie

  • Jamie Shiers's picture

    Author: Jamie Shiers

    Date: 23 May, 2016

    Dear Leif,
    I don’t understand your mail at all.
    I don’t have a lot of time. I am not shouting.
    No-one is asking you or anybody to share my views. There are a number of statements in your mail that come from nowhere, e.g. remarks about “dirty things”.
    I do not know what I could have done about these problems - I do not believe that they could have been addressed by any of the groups I have been involved in.
    There is a problem here - if you don’t want to discuss it or look into it let’s forget it.
    Respectively, bye.
    Jamie
    On 23 May 2016, at 16:53, Leif.Laaksonen <***@***.***> wrote:
    Dear Jamie,
    I am happy you have so much time to spend on shouting about the problem, which you could have addressed in detail and done something to in all the various groups you have been a part of in RDA over the years! I am sure all existing organisations can improve on transparency but I refuse to believe that there would exist an evil plot or group of people doing dirty things behind other people’s back.
    I don’t have all the details, do you Jamie have?, but to my understanding the person who has been voicing strongly a lack of democracy and transparency was a part of the WG/IG chairs meeting program committee! If he did not get his ideas or demands through does not necessary comply to neither a lack of democracy nor transparency.
    While I have great respect for training and educational aspects around data practitioners I don’t interpret it as neither undemocratic nor lack of transparency if RDA with its 4000 members does not (immediately) convert into a training and education organisation on the basis of a request from a handful of (albeit very good) persons. What RDA has achieved so far is a result of discussions, compromises and hard working by very many people, who might not (fully) share Jamie your views.
    RDA will most likely in 5 years time be something else than it is now as life and the research process is constantly changing. Most likely it will still be hard working as it is now but I don’t see how the discussion around the RDA chairs meeting in Nottingham will take us any way forward to answer challenges all the 4000 RDA members are trying to solve.
    Thanks,
    — leif
    From: <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of Jamie Shiers <***@***.***>
    Date: Monday, 23 May 2016 at 13:33
    To: Amy Nurnberger <***@***.***>, RDA Organisational Assembly <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Cc: "***@***.***" <***@***.***>, Aaron Addison <***@***.***>
    Subject: Re: [rda-oab] OAB report to Council
    Dear all,
    I find Amy’s report very comprehensive and agree with the comments received so far.
    However, the “on-going battle” about (perceived) lack of transparency / consensus surrounding the forthcoming RDA “chairs” meeting in Nottingham is doing a lot of harm.
    (If you are not registered for that meeting you are probably not seeing the messages but there really is a problem - including getting some people to recognise that there is a problem).
    Cheers, Jamie
    On 23 May 2016, at 02:22, Aaron Addison <***@***.***> wrote:
    Thanks Amy, thanks Fabrizio,
    I will second the need for a compelling value proposition, though I know such things can be obvious and yet hard to define. The topic has been raised numerous times over the past year, and is not likely to fade away until we have a story to tell in this facet of RDA.
    Good discussion, and thank you Amy for representing OAB at Council!
    Aaron
    Aaron Addison | Director, Scholarly Services
    University Libraries | Washington University in St. Louis
    1 Brookings Drive CB 1061 | St. Louis, MO 63130-4899
    T: 314 935 6198 | E:***@***.***
    ________________________________
    From: anurnberger=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of Amy Nurnberger <***@***.***>
    Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 4:16 AM
    To: Fabrizio.Gagliardi; RDA Organisational Assembly
    Cc: Francesca Arcara; Sergi Girona
    Subject: Re: [rda-oab] OAB report to Council
    Hi, Fabrizio,
    Thank you for sharing your perspectives. Unless anyone has any objections, I will work to include these points in the OA(B) report to Council.
    Best,
    Amy
    On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Fabrizio.Gagliardi <***@***.***> wrote:
    Good and complete summary. The most important point in my opinion you should discuss with the Council is how to demonstrate value to our OAB funding members. In an overall RDA organisation, which is intended to be voluntary and bottom up based, consequently providing all info to all the members in a wide and open way, it is not obvious to justify an yearly OAB fee, which for academic institutions like the one I represent is not negligible. A possible way could be to have an OAB representative as a full standing and voting member in the Council and an ex-officio OAB member in the TAB and all other important bodies. In this way we could pretend to have an important voice in the overall management of the RDA activities and justify to our members the value of the yearly investment, where the fee is o! nly one aspect. We should also consider the time and efforts we spend to participate in the work, and the travelling cost and whatever else is involved.
    To advance on this, you might also propose to have a joint Council and OAB meeting in Denver. In other organisations, I am member off, the Council, or the relevant top executive body, has normally first a closed session followed by an extended session with other relevant components of the organisation. It might be good to try this also in RDA starting with Denver.
    The other point is the industrial participation. I would be personally ! against offering executive seats to industry for free, unless these industries step forward and show real engagement and financial investment in RDA. An industrial advisory board to collect input from industry might be a more appropriate way to engage for the time being.
    Thanks Amy for taking your time to represent us with the Council and best of luck,
    Fab
    - Show quoted text -From: anurnberger=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:anurnberger=***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Amy Nurnberger
    Sent: 21 May 2016 06:17
    To: RDA Organisational Advisory Board (OAB) <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Subject: [rda-oab] OAB report to Council
    Hi, all,
    Based on our most recent meetings and communications received from OA members please find the proposed outline for the OAB report to Council:
    1) Accounting of current members: 42 OA & 6 Affiliate
    2) OAB membership & empty industry chairs
    3) Current work:
    3.1) Aforementioned industry seats,
    3.1.1) Procedural discussion around filling industry chairs, i.e. industry balance
    3.2) OA Member value & engagement,
    3.2.1) Translating OA scope to OA value
    3.2.2) Presenting & effectively communicating OA/RDA value to member organisations (and potential organisational members)
    3.2.3) Creating attractive OA engagement opportunities
    3.3) Process for OA commentary on proposed groups & outputs
    3.3.1) Survey of expertise & interest
    3.3.2) Clarity of process and communications
    3.3.3) Commentator (?) rewards/recognition system
    4) Items for Consideration
    4.1) Commentator rewards/recognition system (to combat volunteer fatigue)
    4.2) Plenary programming: Consider an informal OA networking reception for the c! urrent organizational member representatives so that they could talk amongst themselves about what they're getting out of the membership, what they hoped to but aren't (yet), explore interests of collaboration, etc.
    4.3) Effectiveness of RDA in meeting Organisation goals/missions
    4.3.1) Processes for WG formation that meet need to solve issues more promptly
    4.3.2) Engagement with pain points/solutions that organisations/funders find engaging and useful to further their goals will increase sustainability prospects and amplify value of RDA OA membership
    4.3.3) Trust in, respect for, appreciation of volunteer expertise and efforts
    4.3.3.1) Broader participation: disciplinary & regional
    4.3.3.2) Let WGs rise & fail
    4.3.3.3) Transparent communication around processes
    4.3.3.4) Observe common courtesy
    4.3.4) Effective messaging to a variety of audiences
    4.3.5) Responsiveness to community-based requests
    Please note, items 4.2 & 4.3 arose from recent communications. Items under 4.3 are strongly related to discussions that have been underway in the RDA/EU sphere.
    Please let me know your thoughts as quickly as possible. The report will be made to Council on Tuesday early afternoon (Melbourne time) = 3am UTC
    Thank you for your prompt response.
    Best,
    Amy, OAB co-chair
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-assembly/post/oab-repor...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/52463
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-assembly/post/oab-repor...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/52463
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-assembly/post/oab-repor...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/52463
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-assembly/post/oab-repor...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/52463

  • Stephen Wolff's picture

    Author: Stephen Wolff

    Date: 23 May, 2016

    Amy,
    Chiming in late, with apologies.
    I think that's a usefully substantial list of topics that could easily cause the Council meeting to run overtime. A couple of comments:
    I don't understand 3.2.1.
    4.3, 4.3.1, and 4.3.2 seem to me to fit better in 3.2, whilst 4.3.3 to 4.3.5 have relevance to all members, and perhaps deserve a section of their own?
    Thanks,
    -steve
    stephen wolff
    Principal Scientist
    Internet2
    +1 202 803 8971

  • Amy Nurnberger's picture

    Author: Amy Nurnberger

    Date: 23 May, 2016

    Dear Steve, Jamie, and Leif,
    Thank you for sharing your perspectives on this report outline.
    Steve:
    3.2.1: OA has established a scoping document for itself in the past,
    outlining what OA does within RDA. Part of the challenge of stating value
    for OA members is translating these activities into perceived (and actual)
    value for organizations.
    As noted on the email, items 4.2 & 4.3 were recently raised in
    communications, and have not been discussed by the larger OA(B). Until that
    happens, it was easier to group them as shown to clarify their status. Once
    we have discussed them more thoroughly, I am sure that another
    organisational scheme will make more sense.
    Jamie:
    Thank you for surfacing concerns around RDA processes. This is something I
    have heard about from individual members, and it is good to know when these
    individual concerns are shared by, and affecting, organisational members.
    Leif:
    Your concerns also seem to be centering on RDA processes. Could you please
    clarify which of the points of the report outline you are addressing in
    your message?
    Thanks, all. As noted previously, this report will be delivered on Tuesday
    at 3am UTC.
    Best,
    Amy, OAB co-chair

submit a comment