OAB January 2016 call

Organisational Advisory Board meeting agenda

Tuesday 12 January 2016, 22:00 UTC

AU-US friendly timeslot

Draft minutes

  1. Call to Order - Chair: Walter Stewart
  2. Roll Call
    • Present: Aaron Addison, Amy Nurnberger, Colin Elman, Juan Bicaregui (co-Chair), Kathy Fontaine (secretariat-TAB liaison), Mark Parsons (Secretary General), Larry Lannom, Malcolm Wolski, Patricia Cruse (new delegate from Datacite), Stephen Wolff, Siddeswara Guru, Walter Stewart (co-Chair) and Fotis Karayannis (secretariat).
    • New Org members: Max Planck Computing and Data Facility  (MPCDF), Germany. Due to the uncomfortable time for Europe Raphael Ritz stated that he won't be able to join.
    • Curently the OA is composed of 35 Organisational Members and 5 Affiliate Members. 40 members in total.
    • Patricia as a new member of DataCite briefly introduced herself.
  3. OAB clustering/mapping report - For further comments
    • The report from the OAB sub-group on clustering/mapping is available here.
    • The report was presented at the December meeting by Amy Nurnberger - Slides
    • Amy summarised the main points of the report once again for the ones who were not present.
    • From December meeting - Main points of discussion:
      • It was noted that there is weak participtaion from industry. Investigate link with and potential invitation of the Allotrope foundation : http://www.allotrope.org. (an international association of pharmaceutical and biotech companies dedicated to the building of a “Laboratory Framework” to improve efficiency in data acquisition, archiving, and management).
      • The outcome of this effort can also feed into both the sub-group led by Jamie Shiers about the Value and Engagement for Organisational Members and the adoption discussion.
      • Action: It was agreed to keep this item until Tokyo (Tokyo f2f meeting included).
    • Other background info
  4. TAB Report and "An adoption phase for RDA WGs?" document, Larry Lanom
    • Document link (document prepared inside the TAB workspace). The document was presented by Andrew Treloar at the December meeting. Main point: What happens after a WG finishes? The document proposes an optional adoption or follow-up phase.
    • As both TAB co-Chairs (Andrew and Francoise) were not available, Larry Lannom gave an update on the document progress, as well as a short report from the WG/IG Chairs physical meeting in USA early December.
      • Larry: There was lively discussion at the WG/IG Chairs meeting. Mark was also present. The contention between the ones who think that the 12-18 months is ok vs. the others that feel that it is too short came out again. There is also a new document (summarising the main contention points) that has not been discussed yet in TAB. The document describes two main principles that need to be followed: 1. Working on adoption, 2.  Need for a flexible process (as recommendations may differ for different groups e.g. for policies and software). Regarding adoption, this may range from informal to formal and in the latter case an adoption group may be constituted (new group that has to be approved, with reporting and a life span of its own). Finally, different roles for the different bodies are prescribed.
      • Mark: Yes, there was quite some discussion on the nature of a follow-up WG. This can be an adoption group or a phase-2 that is updating, extending, refining the recommendations of the intiial group. This notion of continuation is strong, but te nature might be variable.
      • Larry: One of the comments was that perhaps WGs go beyond 18 months, without changing names, possibly doing other work in the same area. But there is no consensus yet though. Mark: Again, the 18-month deadline evokes discussion. But I am firm on the 18 months and do not want to change. Renewal or second phase of operation is different. Could be a rapid process (and less honorous). So, want to keep the running deadline.
      • Walter: Remind one of the main RDA principles that the group outcome should be available within a 12-18 period. This was a strong imperative of the RDA founders, so as not to create another talking shop. The tention is what happens after the end of a group with regards to the adoption of these outcomes and how to remain current, or how they will be revised, etc. TAB is seeking advice from others including OAB.
      • Larry: Francoise asked to raise the issue of a more uniformally-structured closure document for each group ending, including a public summary, outputs, lessons learned/what would have been done different for next time, etc..
      • Juan: Care not to confuse two things: 1. Producing outputs and following up with adoption 2. The same group may want to do some other work in the same area with the same group name. Mark: Good point.
      • Mark: On the question from Patricia in the chat about an extension of 6 months: It is not about an extension, but rather on a reformulation. Some time ago there was an Outputs Task Force and one of the recommendations was that the groups have to come with a maintenance (sustainability) plan over time. In some cases there is maintenance as part of an organisation, some others cases it is up to RDA to sustain the WG outputs/recommendations. We certainly need a structure for reconsidering things and what will be next. The Data Type Registry (DTR) group want to do a phase 2 with a follow-up group. A periodic review is neeeded of where things go next.
      • Walter: If not handled with care, we may end up with different versions of the same thing, which may be against interoperability (one of the RDA main principles). This is a challenge that RDA is wrestling with. RDA members need to contribute.
      • Stephen: Any recommendation that continuously remains work in progress is against adoption. Mark: Very goord point .
      • Mark: It is up to OAB to close this issue. Outputs need to be useful and implementable out of the gate, with a possible need for evolution in some cases. I would strongly support a small joint TAB-OAB task force to resolve this. And come up with a concrete discussion paper and recommendations.
      • Walter: Look for OAB volunteers (and also TAB ones). Kathy: It would be best if someone from OAB can join the next TAB meeting to talk about this --> Action
      • Walter: Action Fotis to keep this item in the next meeting, including a report from TAB and how OAB should deal with this, possibly with a small Task Force.
      • Walter: Action: Draft a memo on this and then invite the entire OAB. Fotis to send notes to Walter.
      • Malcolm, Patricia volunteer for being members of the joint group.
      • Mark: The main idea is that a group is formed to write down a proposal to TAB-OAB for the follow-up of a WG.
    • Main points from December OAB meeting:
      • There was consensus that WG cannot be left without any follow-up after its end.WGs may spin off Sustainability/Adoption Groups (SGs or AGs - name to be agreed upon). But this should be handled with care.
      • There should be a time limit for such SGs or AGs. If minor revisions of recommendations, then they can be handled in the SG/AG. If major, then a new WG can be spawned.
      • WGs should have adoption potential as part of their mandate. If they do not achieve adoption, we may have to shut them down. If they do achieve adoption, it would be fine to use the SGs/AGs. The adoption phase may continue after the end of the WG (via the SG/AG). Missions and roles of the two groups/phases need to be clear.
      • Experience from ACM WGs can be useful: WGs work for many years: Once a year there is check point: Peer review.  And then corrective actions or possibly close the WG. I would propose something along these lines for RDA also. The idea of periodic review can be also tested in RDA.
    • Background:
  5. OAB elections - Call for nominations - Walter - Juan
    • UPDATED DOCUMENT AFTER THE DECEMBER MEETING
    • CALL FOR NOMINATIONS:
      • Walter explains the OA vs. OAB. At Plenary 3 (Dublin) it was agreed that an OAB (executive committee of the whole) will be formed only until the OA members are 3 times the size of OAB (12 members), i.e. 36 members. This number was reached in the late summer. So, now we will be electing the OAB out of the OA. Elections will take place just after P7. There will be a "Meet the candidates" session at P7 (Tokyo). The call for nominations has been sent out with a deadline of February 1st. I encourage all of you to become candidates. Candidates may become only the named representatives in the OA. In addition, a co-chair will be elected out of the 11 persons, and Juan will remain as the veteran chair. So at least 11 people need to be nominated!
      • Mark: The OAB was the last group to be formed and there was some time needed to find its role. But now I think that its role around adoption is critical. And how data sharing can help. OAB is key for that and in formalising this. So I also encourage people to stepp up!
      • Juan: I am happy to continue for one more year after the elections, but I would also be happy to step down then, and leave my position to someone else, as I am already quite some time in this. Also explained the staggering position: From the 11 elected, there will be 5 to stay for one year and 6 for two years. OAB memebrs can run again. And then elect 6 each year. Another detail: The OAB meetings of the 12 members will remain open for all members (until it is impossible to run the meetings, but given the time differences and people availabilities this may not happen soon).
  6. Value and Engagement for Organisational Members - Status update
    • How does OAB contribute to RDA and how orgnisations receive benefts being members?
      • Walter: The group was agreed in the October meeting, but was constituted at the December meeting (new members joined then). Jamie Shiers (EIROForum IT WG/CERN) is the chair of this group but he could not make it. He has circulated a document (see link below).
      • Comments on the progress, especially from Colin and Malcolm who are also members of the Jamie-led sub-group?
        • Mark: Be explicit in what organisations can gain from RDA participation. Effectively participate to maximise effect and also make RDA stronger by benefiting themselves. Central theme: if you are involved as an organisation, you can have some influence in the strategic direction of RDA and influence the recommendations and how they are adopted. But this is the Secretary General perspective.
        • Colin: New both as an organisation member and also as an individual member. Puzzlement about what the increment of OA/OAB is. What you wouldn't be able to do from being an individual member. I.e. what is the value added in joining. Walter: It is conforting to have members like you in this group! Many of us have been involved from the very start. So it is good that the committee is also composed of new people not being involved from the beginning. Colin: If you pay, you expect some privatised benefit. I understand that this may be the better visibility for strategic/policy influence in RDA. But visibility may become even worse after the 12-member OAB election. Mark: Privilidged voice for OA/OAB members. Malcolm: Organisational members join for different reasons. And the perceived benefit for different types of organisations and in different geographical areas may be different. Colin: If there are a lot of members, possibly cluster them with same interests. But I see mostly sociological benefits, e.g. for a small or remote organisation participating in a larger structure, getting a perception of sustainability. Juan: If you check the OA agendas, it is all about running RDA itsself. The WG/IG agenda is about the WG. While these meetings, it is about contributing to how RDA runs as an organisation. Not sure if you consider this privatised benefit, but much different from an individual membership. Malcolm: In fact there are few organisation types.
        • Walter: Action: The group to look into the clustering report and whether some useufl input can be received for the Value and Engagement exercise. Possibly tag benefits to identifed types.
        • Stephen: One of the benefits is the "Bully pulpit": RDA is a great place to make it .Mark: this means that your voice can be heard louder. This may not be immediately apparent. But what OAB says carries weight!
        • Juan: Council has a view on what they want from OAB. So maybe a Council member could be added in this group (possibly Ross). Action Juan: Check if a Council member wants to join the Value and Engagement group.
    • Background: Discussion in the past and open action on reviewing the list of benefits RDA receive
  7. Planning for Tokyo OA meetings - Walter-Juan
    • Walter: I remind you that we have two types of meetings: the Open and the Closed one. In the open one all OA members are welcome of course, plus all others. The main idea is to attract new members. So the open meeting features topics that may be of interest for new members to engage. E.g. Panels: on why existing members joined or the challenges in RD interoperability. In the closed one the focus is on the business of the OA. There is already a proposed packed agenda. See below. 
    • Walter inviteds members on ideas for the Open meeting:
      • Juan: The value and engagement item can also stand in the Open meetng. Amy: Yes, how about strategies for maximisng the value and Return on Investment in OAB engagemnet? Mark: What members are doing to take advantage of RDA. Jamie can introduce the item with a presentation. And then a small panel with 2-3 members. But above all, have an open discussion with all! Ask all members and see the value of different members.
      • Adoption stories.
    • Walter: Action Fotis: Include this in the next meeting agenda. And when the minutes are announced, bring up this call for ideas.
    • Current timing:https://rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/RDA%20Plenary%207%20%26%20Co...
      • OA Open meeting: Tuesday 1st of March: 14:30-16:00
      • OA Closed meeting: Tuesday 1st of March: 16:30-18:00
    • Proposed Draft agenda for the closed meeting:
      • Update from Council
      • Meet the candidates
      • OAB: Value and engagement
      • Adoption/Sustainability phase
      • OAB Clustering exercise
    • Call for ideas for the Open OA meeting.
      • Paris meeting main points: Short OA intro. OAB-TAB collaboraiton, OAB clustering exercise, Private sector engagement, AoB. 
  8. Future Directions Planning organic group, Walter-Mark
    • Final report.
    • Walter: Background: More than an year of consultation to come up with this docuemnt. Started in Amsterdam, then continued in San Diego, there was a questionnaire, a draft report for comments, a series of webinars, a next version of the report and now a final report. Today there was also a Council meeting and there was not a quorum to approve it, but no surprises expected. After that Mark and the secretariat will develop action plans.
    • Mark: Not only for secretarat, but also for other groups including the OAB.
  9. WG/IG updates and RFCs / TAB update - Kathy- Fotis
    1. Sent to Council to be Recognised and endorsed groups from previous meeting; expected resolution January 18:
    2. Request for Comments (RFCs):
      • New WG/IGs:
        • RDA/NISO Privacy Implications of Research Data Sets WG - Case Statement was not using the right template - being re-written.
          • Action: OAB reviewers: Aaron and Amy
        • Array Database Working Group - Case Statement.  In TAB.
        • Health Data IG - Charter
        • Global Water Information IG Charter - IG Charter
        • Chemistry Research IG - In TAB review.
        • In last call: Fabrizio: heads-up on a Climate Modelling IG from BSC.
      • Recommendations
      • Kathy: Need to better sync between OAB and TAB reviews. Current OAB cycles may not be frequent enough.
      • Siddeswara:is it possible for all OAB members to submit their domain expertise and interest so that future WG can be assigned or sectariat can contact them if required.
      • Mark: OA members carries weight! EIther as official reviews or as individual members coming from OA members.
      • Walter: Action Kathy: Short form for OA reviewers to send their expertise. Sideswara: Cluster members. Juan: We also have the clustering exercise.
      • Fotis: But also a template for the OAB reviews with focus on adoption. Mark: The issue is reviewers, not the structure, but we can try it. Action: Mark, Kathy and Fotis to see if a template for OAB reviews makes sense.
  10. Future plenaries and secretariat updates
    1. Short news from secretariat- Mark, Kathy, Fotis
      • News from Council - Mark
        • Mark: There was a Council call earlier today. The Council will be using sub-committees to address several issues. External people can be also invited. OAB people will be asked to contribute.
        • Council nominations: A number of candidates was received. The committee will come up with a definite slate of candidates a couple of weeks before Tokyo and then there will be open elections.
        • Future directions document: As discussed there was not a quorum, but to be formally aprpoved. Seretariat to work on operatoinal plans. OA will have a key role again.
      • All members have paid their dues for 2015! Invoices for 2016 have been sent out by RDA Virtual Finance Office subcontracted to a UK accounting firm (PEM) (besides MPG).
      • RDA individual membership updated monthly statistics: 3500 members in December 2015 .
    2. Future plenaries update
      • Plenary 7 - Tokyo, Japan, 1 March - 3 March 2016 - Theme of the event: Making Data Sharing Work in the era of Open Science
        • Venue: Hitotsubashi Hall owned and operated by Hitostubashi University Address: 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8430 
      • Plenary 8 - Denver, 11-16 September 2016, in conjunction with International Data Week.
      • Plenary 9 - Barcelona, Spain  (organised by BSC). 3-7 April 2017. Venue: Barcelo Sants.
  11. Next OAB Meetings
    • Proposal by chairs: Week of February 1st (and then March 1 at P7 Japan). Doodle poll: 1st week of February. EU friendly one.
    • Walter: Consider moving to a fixed schedule: E.g. first Tuesday of every month, in 3 different timezones. 
  12. AoB

 

Agenda

 

San Francisco (U.S.A. - California) Tuesday, 12 January 2016, 14:00:00 PST UTC-8 hours
Denver (U.S.A. - Colorado) Tuesday, 12 January 2016, 15:00:00 MST UTC-7 hours
Washington DC (U.S.A. - District of Columbia) Tuesday, 12 January 2016, 17:00:00 EST UTC-5 hours
London (United Kingdom - England) Tuesday, 12 January 2016, 22:00:00 GMT UTC
Amsterdam (Netherlands) Tuesday, 12 January 2016, 23:00:00 CET UTC+1 hour
Athens (Greece) Wednesday, 13 January 2016, 00:00:00 EET UTC+2 hours
Tokyo (Japan) Wednesday, 13 January 2016, 07:00:00 JST UTC+9 hours
Canberra (Australia - Australian Capital Territory) Wednesday, 13 January 2016, 09:00:00 AEDT UTC+11 hours
Wellington (New Zealand) Wednesday, 13 January 2016, 11:00:00 NZDT UTC+13 hours
Corresponding UTC (GMT) Tuesday, 12 January 2016, 22:00:00    

 

Gotomeeting link:  https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/974314909

Use your microphone and speakers (VOIP) for audio. You'll sound best with a headset. PLEASE MUTE WHILE NOT SPEAKING to avoid injecting echo in the call.

You can also dial in using your phone. Access Code: 974-314-909.  Australia : +61 2 8355 1030, Austria : +43 7 2088 1033, Belgium : +32 (0) 28 93 7001, Canada : +1 (647) 497-9371, Denmark : +45 69 91 89 33, Finland : +358 (0) 942 41 5770, France : +33 (0) 170 950 585, Germany : +49 (0) 692 5736 7303, Ireland : +353 (0) 19 030 050, Italy : +39 0 693 38 75 50, Netherlands : +31 (0) 208 080 208, New Zealand : +64 9 925 0481, Norway : +47 21 54 82 21, Spain : +34 911 82 9890, Sweden : +46 (0) 853 527 817, Switzerland : +41 (0) 435 0167 65, United Kingdom : +44 (0) 20 3713 5010, United States : +1 (571) 317-3117
  1. Call to Order - Chair: Walter Stewart
  2. Roll Call
    • New Org members: Max Planck Computing and Data Facility, Germany. Short intro from MPCDF.
    • Curently the OA is composed of 35 Organisational Members and 5 Affiliate Members. 40 members in total.
  3. OAB clustering/mapping report - For further comments
    • The report from the OAB sub-group on clustering/mapping is available here.
    • The report was presented at the December meeting by Amy Nurnberger - Slides
      • Main points from December meeting discussion:
        • It was agreed to keep this item until Tokyo (Tokyo f2f meeting included).
        • The outcome of this effort can also feed into both the sub-group led by Jamie Shiers about the Value and Engagement for Organisational Members and the adoption discussion.
        • It was noted thta there is weak participtaion from industry. Investigate link with and potential invitation of the Allotrope foundation : http://www.allotrope.org. (an international association of pharmaceutical and biotech companies dedicated to the building of a “Laboratory Framework” to improve efficiency in data acquisition, archiving, and management).
    • Other background info
  4. TAB Report and "An adoption phase for RDA WGs?" document, Larry Lanom (tbc)
    • Document link (document prepared inside the TAB workspace)
    • The document was presented by Andrew Treloar at the December meeting. Main point: What happens after a WG finishes? The document proposes an optional adoption phase. The document was Oked from TAB with some tweaks.
    • Main points from December OAB meeting:
      • There was consensus that WG cannot be left without any follow-up after its end.WGs may spin off Sustainability/Adoption Groups (SGs or AGs - name to be agreed upon). But this should be handled with care.
      • There should be a time limit for such SGs or AGs. If minor revisions of recommendations, then they can be handled in the SG/AG. If major, then a new WG can be spawned.
      • WGs should have adoption potential as part of their mandate. If they do not achieve adoption, we may have to shut them down. If they do achieve adoption, it would be fine to use the SGs/AGs. The adoption phase may continue after the end of the WG (via the SG/AG). Missions and roles of the two groups/phases need to be clear.
      • Experience from ACM WGs can be useful: WGs work for many years: Once a year there is check point: Peer review.  And then corrective actions or possibly close the WG. I would propose something along these lines for RDA also. The idea of periodic review can be also tested in RDA.
    • Steps after the December meeting:
      • WG/IG chairs were asked to comment (at the WG/IG chairs meeting 8-9 December 2015). Report from WG/IG chairs meeting? Larry (tbc?)
      • More input from OAB members either via the next meeting and/or off-line via e-mail.
      • After that wrap all the comments and provide an updated document late January.
  5. OAB elections - Call for nominations - Walter - Juan
    • UPDATED DOCUMENT AFTER THE DECEMBER MEETING
    • CALL FOR NOMINATIONS:
      • An election will occur in mid-March for members for the Organisational Advisory Board – the 12-member body responsible for the work of the Organisational Members of RDA between plenaries.  All designated representatives of Organisational Members are eligible for nomination.  Two seconders from among organisational members and a maximum 200-word statement of why the nominee is seeking election is required.  To complete a nomination, nominees are also asked to self-identify their position with respect to OAB balancing criteria among regions and types of organisations.  The complete process is outlined clearly at  https://rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/OABElectionProcessV02-7-12-2015.docx (version 2 after December OAB call).  
      • Nominations must be received by February 1st, 2016 at enquiries@rd-alliance.org.
      • 11 positions are open for election following plenary 7.  One of the current co-chairs will remain for one year making up the full 12-member body.
      • The OAB has a very important role within RDA; all organisational representatives are strongly encouraged to consider offering themselves for nomination or to actively promote the nomination of a fellow organisational representative.
    • Plan - next steps:
      • Election overall plan: 11 members will be elected + one of OAB co-chairs will stay for a year (12 in total). And then the OAB will elect a chair among its members. And in a year we will replace the veteran chair who will step down. From the 11 elected, there will be 5 to stay for one year and 6 for two years. OAB memebrs can run again.
      • Timeline: Formal call for nominations (similar to TAB processs) issued beginning of January 2016 with a deadline at the end of January 2016. There will be a "Meet the candidates" session at P7 and an e-election (as with TAB) after that.
  6. Value and Engagement for Organisational Members - Status update
  7. Planning for Tokyo OA meetings - Walter-Juan
    • Current timing:https://rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/RDA%20Plenary%207%20%26%20Co...
      • OA Open meeting: Tuesday 1st of March: 14:30-16:00
      • OA Closed meeting: Tuesday 1st of March: 16:30-18:00
    • Proposed Draft agenda for the closed meeting:
      • Update from Council
      • Meet the candidates
      • OAB: Value and engagement
      • Adoption/Sustainability phase
      • OAB Clustering exercise
    • Call for ideas for the Open OA meeting.
      • Paris meeting main points: Short OA intro. OAB-TAB collaboraiton, OAB clustering exercise, Private sector engagement, AoB. 
  8. Future Directions Planning organic group, Walter-Mark
    • Final report. Update from (today's) Council meeting. Mark and secretariat will develop action plans.
  9. WG/IG updates and RFCs / TAB update - Kathy- Fotis
    1. Sent to Council to be Recognised and endorsed groups from previous meeting; expected resolution nlt January 18:
    2. Request for Comments (RFCs):
  10. Future plenaries and secretariat updates
    1. Short news from secretariat- Mark, Kathy, Fotis
      • Report from the call for nominations for the Council - Mark
      • All members have paid their dues for 2015! Invoices for 2016 have been sent out by RDA Virtual Finance Office subcontracted to a UK accounting firm (PEM) (besides MPG).
      • RDA individual membership updated monthly statistics: 3500 members in December 2015 .
    2. Future plenaries update
      • Plenary 7 - Tokyo, Japan, 1 March - 3 March 2016 - Theme of the event: Making Data Sharing Work in the era of Open Science
        • Venue: Hitotsubashi Hall owned and operated by Hitostubashi University Address: 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8430 
      • Plenary 8 - Denver, 11-16 September 2016, in conjunction with International Data Week.
      • Plenary 9 - Barcelona, Spain  (organised by BSC). 3-7 April 2017. Venue: Barcelo Sants.
  11. Next OAB Meetings
      1. Proposal by chairs: Week of February 1st (and then March 1 at P7 Japan). Doodle poll?
    1. AoB