[Stefanie Kethers]

Interest Group Title: Coordinating the Global Open Science Commons IG

Group Page: https://rd-alliance.org/groups/coordinating-global-open-science-commons-ig

Charter: https://rd-alliance.org/group/coordinating-global-open-science-commons-i…

Revised charter: https://www.rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/case_statement/RDA-GORC-IG_revised_case_statement.pdf

Proposers: Andrew Treloar, Corina Pascu, Vivien Bonazzi, Sarah Jones

Date Received by TAB: 6 September 2019

 

 

 

Summary:

Focus and Fit:

Capacity:

Impact and Engagement:

Recommendation: Charter is Sufficient _X ; Charter Requires Revision __; Charter is Rejected __

SR: The revised charter includes a summary of how the group addressed TAB concerns.  Instead of summarizing those changes here, we direct readers to the charter. The most important concern, clarifying the definition of a ‘Global Commons’, has been addressed (in particular see the bottom of page 3, top of page 4) and sufficiently responds to the points raised by TAB. Given the minor revisions, which have all been addressed, it is recommended that this charter be approved.

 

---

NOTE: The text below relates to the review of the original case statement and are included as a historical record of interaction only

 

Summary: 

The proposal fits into the focus of RDA and in fact the outcomes would help RDA’s  presence and impact at a global level.

 

Focus and Fit:  

(Are the Interest Group objectives aligned with the RDA mission ?  Is the scope too large for effective progress, too small for an RDA effort, or not appropriate for the RDA?  Overall, is this a worthwhile effort for the RDA to take on?  Is this an effort that adds value over and above what is currently being done within the community?)

The proposal fits into the overall interest of RDA.

Capacity:

(Does the initial membership list include sufficient expertise, and disciplinary and international representation?  Are the people involved in the Interest Group sufficient to make tangible progress?  What individuals or organizations are missing?) 

The proposers [and interested members enlisted] are from North America, Australia and Europe and represent international initiatives on the topic. The proposers mention that they intend to have chairs from different continents which is absolutely required to work towards these kind of aims at a global level. The participation in their BoFs indicates that they may have fairly good geographic representation.  

Impact and Engagement:

(Is it likely that the Interest Group will engage the intended community?  Is there evidence that the research community wants this?  Will the outcome(s) of the Interest Group foster data sharing and/or exchange?)

This IG impact will be significant for RDA to work on the  ‘Global Commons’  for research mainly as it is likely to have a global membership with relevant expertise and activities. The IG could take forward state of the art on a topic contributed by players such as OCED, G7, European Commission/EOSC, ARDC and others. The RDA IGs and WGs have contributed and are contributing to policy, infrastructure, capacity buidling and other aspects, which all together contribute towards Global Commons. In this sense the proposed IG will have an overarching role and responbility to coordinate all such RDA activites and to integrate these into the proposed framework. The proposed liaisons with the Funders Forum and IG and with the National Data Services IG (and possible merging with it) are very relevant.

A few issues that proposers may look into are:

1. The introduction does not provide a clear view on the concept of the ‘Global Commons’. It becomes more clear while reading the subsequent sections.  Recommend clarifying the introduction to demonstrate the narrowed focus, and that this term is not yet defined.  In addition, a Science Commons is not the same as a Data Commons, the latter being a subset of the former. This is not explained in the text and at a minimum needs to be clarified.

2. The objectives statement need not state that it intends to ‘differ’ from national and continental structures, but could state that it will take note of and build on the best practices in national and continental intiatives. 

3. A 12-18 month period has been specifed just as a WG would do, with explicit objectives for the period. The proposers could explain the outcome/deliverable expected at the end of 18 months, whether it will be a report, a compilation of global initiatives, oe something else. Will the roadmap they propose have some implementation plan to come up with guidelines or tools?  Given their detailed timeline, it may be worth clarifying why this group is requesting an Interest Group as opposed to a Working Group, or to give a bit more detail on the WG(s), which may be proposed as announced.

4. Mention of UN initiatives missing. 

Please also keep in mind the community comment on the importance of semantics, which already gotten a positive feedback from Andrew Treloar. Also have a look to check whether additional comments have been posted after the completion of this initial review.

Recommendation:  Charter is Sufficient __; Charter Requires Revision _X_; Charter is Rejected __

Additional Comments:

TAB is requesting minor revisions.  In particular, we ask the group consider the revisions requested in point 1.  If the group can return the requested revisions in a short time span, we will do our best to return an updated review before the upcoming plenary.

Discussion