updated policy, process, and norms

At this stage WGs will hopefully begin to produce Recommendations, and we already have request for comments for WG proposals. There is a procedure which is followed, but I think that the 'Request for Comment' phase should be defined a bit more formally and explicitely in a "process" section of the web site:

- RFC duration: 1 month

- document posted on the web site, with a template provided for 'Request for Comment' page. All comments have to be posted on the RFC page and the proposers are expected to answer on the same page.

- message to the whole RDA community announcing the RFC, the location of the RFC page and the RFC end date

- one week before the end of the RFC period, reminder sent to the community

Francoise

A couple of comments:
1. Re. transparency -- the policy document states:
A couple of comments:
1. Re. transparency -- the policy document states:
> • To ensure transparency in WG operations. Members should declare:
> • ​They have no conflicts of interest.
> • They have the rights to contribute what they contribute.
> • All work of a WG (meeting minutes, discussions, etc.) should be visible to all RDA members.
> • The TF recommends that we change the terms of membership to reflect these transparency criteria. The first time a member logs in after the terms have changed they should be asked to re-agree. We could include some FAQs addressing the criteria above.
I could interpret this in two ways:
A. Upon joining RDA I agree (or in the special case re-agree to changed terms after joining) that I will state any COIs for any WG I later join or
B. I have no current COIs.
There are already enough WGs that its not reasonable to expect anyone to know whether they have any COIs with any current WG, to say nothing of any future WG, so it has to be A. Then I think there will have to be a further note or condition of joining a WG, reminding the potential member at that time that they agreed to this earlier and to confirm that they have no COI as they currently understand the WG and if they find one later they will so state it. And then we have to have a way for any potential COIs or disclaimers to be recorded.
2. One of the 'red' comments
A couple of comments:
1. Re. transparency -- the policy document states:
> • To ensure transparency in WG operations. Members should declare:
> • ​They have no conflicts of interest.
> • They have the rights to contribute what they contribute.
> • All work of a WG (meeting minutes, discussions, etc.) should be visible to all RDA members.
> • The TF recommends that we change the terms of membership to reflect these transparency criteria. The first time a member logs in after the terms have changed they should be asked to re-agree. We could include some FAQs addressing the criteria above.
I could interpret this in two ways:
A. Upon joining RDA I agree (or in the special case re-agree to changed terms after joining) that I will state any COIs for any WG I later join or
B. I have no current COIs.
There are already enough WGs that its not reasonable to expect anyone to know whether they have any COIs with any current WG, to say nothing of any future WG, so it has to be A. Then I think there will have to be a further note or condition of joining a WG, reminding the potential member at that time that they agreed to this earlier and to confirm that they have no COI as they currently understand the WG and if they find one later they will so state it. And then we have to have a way for any potential COIs or disclaimers to be recorded.
2. One of the 'red' comments
> RDA Recommendations are distinctly labeled as such. [How?]
We will need a document format for RDARs, so that they all follow the same pattern to make them easier to read, and so there will be a standard place to indicate that they are approved RDARs, when they were approved, etc. For other kinds of things we should strive for some sort of standardization (comments in exemplar code snippets, etc) but I suppose it may not always be possible. What will be possible is for RDA to keep a list and, when appropriate, the outputs themselves.
3. Another 'red' comment
A couple of comments:
1. Re. transparency -- the policy document states:
> • To ensure transparency in WG operations. Members should declare:
> • ​They have no conflicts of interest.
> • They have the rights to contribute what they contribute.
> • All work of a WG (meeting minutes, discussions, etc.) should be visible to all RDA members.
> • The TF recommends that we change the terms of membership to reflect these transparency criteria. The first time a member logs in after the terms have changed they should be asked to re-agree. We could include some FAQs addressing the criteria above.
I could interpret this in two ways:
A. Upon joining RDA I agree (or in the special case re-agree to changed terms after joining) that I will state any COIs for any WG I later join or
B. I have no current COIs.
There are already enough WGs that its not reasonable to expect anyone to know whether they have any COIs with any current WG, to say nothing of any future WG, so it has to be A. Then I think there will have to be a further note or condition of joining a WG, reminding the potential member at that time that they agreed to this earlier and to confirm that they have no COI as they currently understand the WG and if they find one later they will so state it. And then we have to have a way for any potential COIs or disclaimers to be recorded.
2. One of the 'red' comments
> RDA Recommendations are distinctly labeled as such. [How?]
We will need a document format for RDARs, so that they all follow the same pattern to make them easier to read, and so there will be a standard place to indicate that they are approved RDARs, when they were approved, etc. For other kinds of things we should strive for some sort of standardization (comments in exemplar code snippets, etc) but I suppose it may not always be possible. What will be possible is for RDA to keep a list and, when appropriate, the outputs themselves.
3. Another 'red' comment
> Notifies all WG and IG Chairs [or the whole membership?] and the TAB about the new draft
It certainly has to go out to the whole membership at some point. But we could add another stage. TAB + Chairs first to catch problems, esp. re. overlap and conflicts not known to the originating WG, then out to the Membership for general comment, then to Council. Any of these could be iterative. Someone on the TAB or the Council or maybe even the Secretariat will probably have to track the process (someone in the US might say bird dog it) and summarize comments and the path it took to get to the Council before the Council can make a reasonable evaluation.
4. Another 'red' comment
A couple of comments:
1. Re. transparency -- the policy document states:
> • To ensure transparency in WG operations. Members should declare:
> • ​They have no conflicts of interest.
> • They have the rights to contribute what they contribute.
> • All work of a WG (meeting minutes, discussions, etc.) should be visible to all RDA members.
> • The TF recommends that we change the terms of membership to reflect these transparency criteria. The first time a member logs in after the terms have changed they should be asked to re-agree. We could include some FAQs addressing the criteria above.
I could interpret this in two ways:
A. Upon joining RDA I agree (or in the special case re-agree to changed terms after joining) that I will state any COIs for any WG I later join or
B. I have no current COIs.
There are already enough WGs that its not reasonable to expect anyone to know whether they have any COIs with any current WG, to say nothing of any future WG, so it has to be A. Then I think there will have to be a further note or condition of joining a WG, reminding the potential member at that time that they agreed to this earlier and to confirm that they have no COI as they currently understand the WG and if they find one later they will so state it. And then we have to have a way for any potential COIs or disclaimers to be recorded.
2. One of the 'red' comments
> RDA Recommendations are distinctly labeled as such. [How?]
We will need a document format for RDARs, so that they all follow the same pattern to make them easier to read, and so there will be a standard place to indicate that they are approved RDARs, when they were approved, etc. For other kinds of things we should strive for some sort of standardization (comments in exemplar code snippets, etc) but I suppose it may not always be possible. What will be possible is for RDA to keep a list and, when appropriate, the outputs themselves.
3. Another 'red' comment
> Notifies all WG and IG Chairs [or the whole membership?] and the TAB about the new draft
It certainly has to go out to the whole membership at some point. But we could add another stage. TAB + Chairs first to catch problems, esp. re. overlap and conflicts not known to the originating WG, then out to the Membership for general comment, then to Council. Any of these could be iterative. Someone on the TAB or the Council or maybe even the Secretariat will probably have to track the process (someone in the US might say bird dog it) and summarize comments and the path it took to get to the Council before the Council can make a reasonable evaluation.
4. Another 'red' comment
> Enough information to register a Persistent Identifier [With CrossRef, DataCite, other?].
Well you'd think DataCite, given RDA and given the likely special relationship RDA will have with DataCite, but RDARs are not data sets. So if we want the documents especially to be in the DOI world of persistent reference linking and standard metadata its probably Crossref, although DataCite and Crossref work closely together in some areas. I can facilitate this if it is useful.
5. I think its good to get all of this out for wider comment as soon as possible. The basic process and over-all approach seems good to me, but I'm pretty sure there is further to go on IP, especially patents, if only in defining the terms we are using in these documents. See RFC3979
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt
for the IETF take on this.
Larry

On 1/9/14 5:25 PM, Mark Parsons wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have revised and created:
Thanks for all your work on this Mark.
>
> the policy https://rd-alliance.org/groups/rda-outputs-and-ip-task-force/wiki/draft-...
> the process https://rd-alliance.org/groups/rda-outputs-and-ip-task-force/wiki/proces...
> the norms https://rd-alliance.org/groups/rda-outputs-and-ip-task-force/wiki/norms-...
>
> Note, in addition to what we discussed, I allowed the contributors to decide whether they want to use CC-BY or CC0 for Recommendations.
Fine with me.
>
> Please review these carefully and edit as desired. My hope is that we can confirm that this is ready to send to the membership on Monday.
Maybe it's just me but I can't find any URL to
join today's meeting. Could you, Mark, send
the link again please?
Cheers,
Raphael
>
> cheers,
>
> -m. =
>
On 1/9/14 5:25 PM, Mark Parsons wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have revised and created:
Thanks for all your work on this Mark.
On 1/9/14 5:25 PM, Mark Parsons wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have revised and created:
Thanks for all your work on this Mark.
>
> the policy https://rd-alliance.org/groups/rda-outputs-and-ip-task-force/wiki/draft-...
> the process https://rd-alliance.org/groups/rda-outputs-and-ip-task-force/wiki/proces...
> the norms https://rd-alliance.org/groups/rda-outputs-and-ip-task-force/wiki/norms-...
>
> Note, in addition to what we discussed, I allowed the contributors to decide whether they want to use CC-BY or CC0 for Recommendations.
Fine with me.
On 1/9/14 5:25 PM, Mark Parsons wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have revised and created:
Thanks for all your work on this Mark.
>
> the policy https://rd-alliance.org/groups/rda-outputs-and-ip-task-force/wiki/draft-...
> the process https://rd-alliance.org/groups/rda-outputs-and-ip-task-force/wiki/proces...
> the norms https://rd-alliance.org/groups/rda-outputs-and-ip-task-force/wiki/norms-...
>
> Note, in addition to what we discussed, I allowed the contributors to decide whether they want to use CC-BY or CC0 for Recommendations.
Fine with me.
>
> Please review these carefully and edit as desired. My hope is that we can confirm that this is ready to send to the membership on Monday.
Maybe it's just me but I can't find any URL to
join today's meeting. Could you, Mark, send
the link again please?
Cheers,
Raphael