RDA OAB - New document and postponement of next meeting

17 Dec 2013
Groups audience: 

Dear OAB colleagues,
New document
Attached is a document that Leif, Fortis and I have been drafting which brings together various things we have been discussing about organisational membership.
It is also in the Filedepot at https://www.rd-alliance.org/filedepot/folder/157
It describes what Organisational Membership is, the OA and the OAB. It also proposes a process for OAB elections.
It also discusses how organisations can join, proposing that there are two possible ways to join: via a subscription or via a membership agreement.
Please give the document you consideration and make comments, either by email on this list or via comments or tracked changes in the document.
Next meeting
Concerning our next meeting, in order to focus the discussion so that we can move things forward in a constructive way, we thought that it would be best to postpone the meeting until people had a chance to read and comment on the document and then draw up an agenda based on these comments. So we propose to postpone the next meeting until after the holiday.
Could you please fill in the doodle at: http://doodle.com/inzfmwrbpku582u8 and we will pick the first date in the new year which can have a reasonable attendance.
Sorry for the late change.
We look forward to receiving your comments on the document.
Best regards,
Juan, Leif, Fotis
--
Scanned by iCritical.

File Attachment: 
AttachmentSize
File OM-Processes-v03.docx982.46 KB
  • Jamie Shiers's picture

    Author: Jamie Shiers

    Date: 18 Dec, 2013

    Dear all,
    This new document is certainly better than the previous draft by a long way.
    However, there are still problems - ranging from the trivial to the more serious:
    - Trivial: Is it organisation or organization? Not both, preferably not in the same paragraph:
    - Legal matters: an international organisation such as CERN will not accept to be bound by the laws of the country in which RDA is constituted. If you are happy to have this crossed out and a copy of the CERN standard legal conditions attached fine.
    - "OAB members can be ejected" - this sounds unnecessarily heavy for me. Particularly for a document that is not a legal document :-)
    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Jamie
    On Dec 17, 2013, at 6:24 PM, JuanBicarregui <***@***.***> wrote:
    Dear OAB colleagues,
    New document
    Attached is a document that Leif, Fortis and I have been drafting which brings together various things we have been discussing about organisational membership.
    It is also in the Filedepot at https://www.rd-alliance.org/filedepot/folder/157
    It describes what Organisational Membership is, the OA and the OAB. It also proposes a process for OAB elections.
    It also discusses how organisations can join, proposing that there are two possible ways to join: via a subscription or via a membership agreement.
    Please give the document you consideration and make comments, either by email on this list or via comments or tracked changes in the document.
    Next meeting
    Concerning our next meeting, in order to focus the discussion so that we can move things forward in a constructive way, we thought that it would be best to postpone the meeting until people had a chance to read and comment on the document and then draw up an agenda based on these comments. So we propose to postpone the next meeting until after the holiday.
    Could you please fill in the doodle at: http://doodle.com/inzfmwrbpku582u8 and we will pick the first date in the new year which can have a reasonable attendance.
    Sorry for the late change.
    We look forward to receiving your comments on the document.
    Best regards,
    Juan, Leif, Fotis
    --
    Scanned by iCritical.

    Attached files:
    OM-Processes-v03.docx
    --
    Full post: http://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-oab-new-document-and-postponement-next-me...
    Manage my subscriptions: http://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: http://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/1107

  • Juan Bicarregui's picture

    Author: Juan Bicarregui

    Date: 18 Dec, 2013

    Thanks Jamie,
    All valid points.
    I did wonder about point 2. I don't think we need it here.
    Juan
    - Show quoted text -From: Jamie Shiers
    Sent: 18/12/2013 10:42
    To: <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Subject: Re: [rda-oab] RDA OAB - New document and postponement of next meeting
    Dear all,
    This new document is certainly better than the previous draft by a long way.
    However, there are still problems - ranging from the trivial to the more serious:
    - Trivial: Is it organisation or organization? Not both, preferably not in the same paragraph:
    - Legal matters: an international organisation such as CERN will not accept to be bound by the laws of the country in which RDA is constituted. If you are happy to have this crossed out and a copy of the CERN standard legal conditions attached fine.
    - "OAB members can be ejected" - this sounds unnecessarily heavy for me. Particularly for a document that is not a legal document :-)
    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Jamie
    On Dec 17, 2013, at 6:24 PM, JuanBicarregui <***@***.***> wrote:
    Dear OAB colleagues,
    New document
    Attached is a document that Leif, Fortis and I have been drafting which brings together various things we have been discussing about organisational membership.
    It is also in the Filedepot at https://www.rd-alliance.org/filedepot/folder/157
    It describes what Organisational Membership is, the OA and the OAB. It also proposes a process for OAB elections.
    It also discusses how organisations can join, proposing that there are two possible ways to join: via a subscription or via a membership agreement.
    Please give the document you consideration and make comments, either by email on this list or via comments or tracked changes in the document.
    Next meeting
    Concerning our next meeting, in order to focus the discussion so that we can move things forward in a constructive way, we thought that it would be best to postpone the meeting until people had a chance to read and comment on the document and then draw up an agenda based on these comments. So we propose to postpone the next meeting until after the holiday.
    Could you please fill in the doodle at: http://doodle.com/inzfmwrbpku582u8 and we will pick the first date in the new year which can have a reasonable attendance.
    Sorry for the late change.
    We look forward to receiving your comments on the document.
    Best regards,
    Juan, Leif, Fotis
    --
    Scanned by iCritical.

    Attached files:
    OM-Processes-v03.docx
    --
    Full post: http://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-oab-new-document-and-postponement-next-me...
    Manage my subscriptions: http://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: http://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/1107
    --
    Scanned by iCritical.

  • Leif Laaksonen's picture

    Author: Leif Laaksonen

    Date: 19 Dec, 2013

    Jamie,
    We have had some discussion about the legal matters as the RDA Council must have tools for rejecting the application from an organisation that might be breaking against the principles of democracy, the rule of law and does not respect human rights. The text in the document was a bit of a compromise and is perhaps not addressing the things I was mentioning. The question is do you think this should be mentioned in the document?
    -- leif

  • Jamie Shiers's picture

    Author: Jamie Shiers

    Date: 19 Dec, 2013

    Dear Leif,
    I can't really speak for other organisations but I suspect that some / many may be happy with the statement about the laws of the country … (UK?)
    I just know that an international organisation such as CERN does not accept such phrases. We face this all the time - literally on a daily basis. If the RDA can accept what I said, that CERN would strike out this clause and include a copy of its standard terms - and assuming that the majority of other candidate organisations are fine with it, then leave it in.
    What I would suggest is the following:
    - The simply things in the document are cleaned up (spelling, grammar, etc.)
    - A few organisations take the then-current draft and get feedback from their legal departments (as wide a spread as possible)
    - We then re-discuss after hearing their comments.
    FYI, I am also in the process of trying to get a "Collaboration Agreement" signed by a variety of institutes and entities worldwide, so I know how much "fun" this can be. In my case, some institutes rejected it for not having a header / footer on each page with the title of the document and page n/m).
    Cheers, Jamie
    On Dec 19, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Leif.Laaksonen <***@***.***>
    wrote:

  • Amy Nurnberger's picture

    Author: Amy Nurnberger

    Date: 19 Dec, 2013

    Dear all,
    Our legal practices at Columbia University are similar to those at CERN
    with regard to being bound by laws of another country. Should this
    document go forward in its current state, we, too, would strike this
    clause and append our standard language. Of course, it may be best to
    leave it in as something of a place-holder that can be struck & appended :)
    Best,

submit a comment