[Mark Parsons]

Calls are Mondays at 15:00 UTC

1.  Please join my meeting.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/465003005

 

2.  Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) – a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.

 

United States: +1 (213) 493-0618

Australia: +61 2 9091 7606

Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1036

Belgium: +32 (0) 28 08 4345

Canada: +1 (647) 497-9372

Denmark: +45 (0) 69 91 89 24

Finland: +358 (0) 942 41 5788

France: +33 (0) 170 950 586

Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6928

Ireland: +353 (0) 19 030 053

Italy: +39 0 693 38 75 53

Netherlands: +31 (0) 208 080 212

New Zealand: +64 (0) 4 974 7243

Norway: +47 21 04 29 76

Spain: +34 931 81 6713

Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 182

Switzerland: +41 (0) 225 3311 20

United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6777

Access Code: 465-003-005

Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting

 

Meeting ID: 465-003-005

6 January 2013

Agenda

 

1) What is the default license for RoD (Note: I included a process to request a different license if appropriate)? We have not received much feedback on this issue, but Puneet Kishor from Creative Commons weighed in to support CCZero.

 

On our call, I would like to gauge consensus on the following approach. We use CCZero as the default for RoD and we write some explicit norms including attribution, share-alike, and a feeding modifications back in to RDA.

 

2) Guidlines for IP and sharing of “implementations”. How do we start this? I admit to being at somewhat of a loss.

 

3) Next steps. Do we need more legal validation/review? Are we ready for member review? Do we want to send the policy back to Council first?

 

4) AOB

16 December 2013

Attendance: Raphael, Anita, Gerry, Larry, Mark (minutes)

 

Agenda and Notes:

1. Update from Council on our draft policy. They would like to adopt an interim policy that says that everything RDA produces (at least on the web site) is generally available under a CC-BY license. Is that acceptable?

2. Update on involving “legal experts”. Anna Eisenstadt has agreed to join us as recommended by the Legal Interoperability IG. Invitations pending to Prof.s Hilty and Drexl of MPI per Dietmar Harhoff and Raphael Ritz.

* What are our next steps in defining appropriate licenses?

3. Response to review comments. Issues:

* clarify that we favor individual authors in citation.

* clarify that we encourage open implementations but cannot formally ensure them as Walter Stewart suggests.

* clarify criteria to maintain RoD as per Reagan Moore’s comment.

* improve process on how to respond to seriously critical review.

4. Next meeting/Next steps

5. AOB

 

Agreed: CC-BY as a default is OK for now, but further discussion is necessary.

 

In some cases, it might be preferable to have CC0 to avoid complications of attribution in an automated environment. On the other hand, in some cases we may want to impose “share-alike” or “no-derivative-works” style restrictions. We want to achieve broad use and interoperability without chaos. We want to encourage people to push things back in to RDA.

 

Action: Hilary to investigate if CC-BY ver. 4.0 is an acceptable policy for the web content under their contractual rules.

 

Action: Mark to update policy and ask legal interop group and a representative for comment.

 

Action: Raphael to contact Pawel Kamocki, another colleague who may be able to assist.

 

Next Meeting. 6 Jan.

 

2 December 2013

Attendance: Raphael, Gerry, Beth, Mark (minutes)

 

Agenda:

 

The basic agenda is to discuss the draft policy.

 

Please comment on the document or edit directly.

 

Specific discussion topics:

• Does this policy apply to all RDA outputs or just those from WGs or WGS and IGs? I took the broader approach
• Did I get the classifications right?
• Are the criteria for Recs on Data OK? Is Recs on Data an acceptable term? What about individual authorship?
• Can IGs produce formal endorsed Recs on Data or just WGs? Larry says only WGs can produce RoDs. I tend to agree
• What types of recs do we want to make on licenses/waivers for the different products. Are we ready to seek broader input or get legal experts involved?
• How do we ensure the necessary transparency in WG operations?

 

Agreed:

• The policy should apply broadly and provide a general default IP policy for DDs and other documents.We do not recommend a non-commercial clause. A basic CC-BY license may be most appropriate.
• Individual authors should be used in the citation.
• The RoD criteria need to include versioning.
• We will specify a license/waiver for the RoD in the policy. The specific license/waiver will need more discussion
• Any recomendations for Implementations would be a separate document. The recomendations could suggest appropriate licenses and repositoires (e.g. GitHub)
• IGs can produce RoDs, but the process of meeting the criteria means that most RoDs will come form WGs
• 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.
• Suggest that we change the terms of membership to reflect the transparency criteria. The first time a member logs in after the terms have changed they should be asked to reagree. We should include some FAQs addressing the criteria above.

Action: Mark to invite legal experts to join the group.

Action: Mark to send draft policy to WG/IG chairs for comment.

Action: All to brainstorm on alternative names for RoD.

 

Remaining issues:

• Website Terms of Use
• License/waiver for RoD. Gerry favors there being some control over how the RoD are re-used. Some way to ensure permission is granted for re-publication in modified  forms. Perhaps a “share-alike” clause or a GPL style requirment to contribute back. Mark suggests that clear, stated norms under a CCZero framework may be best.

Next meeting: 16 Dec. 15:00 UTC

18 November 2013, 15:00 UTC

Agenda:

1. Come to a conclusion on what RDA “owns” and what it “endorses” (probably not the right words). RDA owns and maintains formal docs like specifications and data models. It endorses tools, code, APIs etc. that implement what the formal docs specify if the tools are suffciently open.
2. Go over the Peter/Herman paper on recommendations for documents.
3. Decide if this is the time to bring in legal advice for the documents that are coming together now.

Connecting:

1.  Please join my meeting, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:00 AM MST.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/534761973

 

2.  Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) – a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.

 

United States: +1 (213) 493-0014

Australia: +61 2 8355 1035

Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 2169

Belgium: +32 (0) 42 68 0154

Canada: +1 (647) 497-9373

Denmark: +45 (0) 89 88 04 29

Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 4586

France: +33 (0) 182 880 932

Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6930

Ireland: +353 (0) 19 036 185

Italy: +39 0 294 75 15 35

Netherlands: +31 (0) 108 080 114

New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 801 0292

Norway: +47 21 01 89 06

Spain: +34 911 23 4170

Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 288

Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0824 39

United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6778

Access Code: 534-761-973

Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting

 

Meeting ID: 534-761-973

---

11 November 2013, 15:00 UTC

Attendance: Raphael, Gerry, Larry (minutes)

 

A brief but productive meeting attended by Raphael, Gerry, and Larry. We discussed the message I had sent out Sunday night and agreed that my case #2 was the one to focus on — specifications and recommendations coming out of the WG that could need maintenance over time. This would probably apply even more to the output from Raphael’s WG which would produce a living set of terminology documents, models, etc.

 

We agreed that, in Gerry’s words, RDA needed a light-weight permanence. No extensive services, zero to little development work, but the need to maintain whatever processes produce the recommendations and vocabularies and so on in the first place to be maintained over time. That should be done as economically as possible, but will require some level of ongoing funding. The alternative to this, should RDA go out of existence in 5-10 years, would be to find a home for each and every recommendation that came out that required some level of maintenance. 

 

We also discussed some approaches and ramifications of this.

 

Gerry explained that any sizable commercial contributions would result in the industry players naturally trying to drive the results in the direction of something that they could use to generate income. Not ideal for RDA. Inside IBM the main interest is from the research folks.

 

We thought that it would be useful for the Plenaries to be sponsored, to further keep down costs.

 

Raphael pointed out that most German involvement was from the large research institutes such as Max Planck with little representation from Universities. Larry thought that this was an opportunity for funding agencies to respond to proposals that included funding for participation in RDA WGs/IGs.

 

Actions for the next call

 

o Come to a conclusion on this topic – do we all agree on the light touch approach that will require some long-term stewardship?

 

o Go over the Peter/Herman paper on recommendations for documents.

 

o Decide if this is the time to bring in legal advice for the documents that are coming together now.

---

4 November 2013 15:00 UTC

Agenda

• Membership update. Welcome Gerry Lane. Some WG chairs send their thanks, but noone has volunteered to be on the TF.
• Review of Potential outputs
  • Is this sufficient? Did I miss anything critical
  • Can we simplify this? Is it possible to boil this down to a small set of documents?
  • Does Herman and Peter’s proposal work?
  • Are there other models we need to consider?
• Next steps for community review and input. When do we involve the lawyers?
• Next telecon

Attendance: Mark, Larry, Raphael, Juan, Beth Gerry

Notes

Discussion of current potential outputs: Current WGs may not be suitably representative. We need to make a distinction between what WGs are prodcuing in doing their work vs. official deliverables. The list is not comprehensive list, but it’s sufficient to start the discussion of formal vs informal

When considering the formal outputs, if RDA is responsible for sustaining and operating things in the long run, it’s a much more complex problem. RDA should generaly avoid “owning” things. 

We do, however, want to encourage openness, interoperability, and reuse. We also recognize that we want to see technological demonstrations, sharing of code, etc.

[lengthy discussion of license schemes, exceptions, past experiences, and complications that I didn’t fully capture]

While we want to encourage openness, and RDA would only endorse things that are sufficiently open, we want avoid recommending a specific approach or license.

 

Agreed: We should define critria for what RDA endorses rather than definign “ownership”. We may need to have categories of outputs.

 

The Case statement should describe the appropach but there needs to be room for change as the WG goes forward.

 

Next steps:

1. We review the outputs coming from DTR and DFT WGs as case studies to see if we can define the RDA criteria based on our existing principles that would maximize reuse of these outputs..
2. We present these criteria (and the process) to the membership for feedback
3. Refine and revise.
4. Bring in legal review

Action: Larry to write up DTR outputs and issues

Action: Rapheal to do write upr DFT.

Next Telecons: 

Mondays, at 15:00 UTC, until we’re done.

 

25 October 2013, 8:00 ET/12:00 UTC

Agenda

• Review and approve “charter”
• Review and agree on two phased approach
• Whether we need to expand membership. If so to whom.
• Approach for determining the outputs
• Determine means for getting member input
• Set up future telecon schedule.

Attendance: Mark, Larry, Raphael, Juan

Notes

The team agreed on the general charter and the two phase approach. We generaly agreed that a narrow scope of outputs will make the IP easier.

We agreed we need to be inclusive but keep the group small.

Action: Mark to invite Gerry Lane as an org. member interested in these matters. Mark also to inform WG chairs and say they will have opportunity to weigh in and if anyone wants to actively join the TF.

We will start with a survey of the sort of outputs currently being generated by the WGs and then seek community input.

Action: Mark to start a list and then others to contribute.

Next Telecon: 4 November, 15:00 UTC (note the US goes off Daylight Savings the 3 Nov)

Discussion:

Larry offered “A few thoughts in preparation for the call –
 

• Transparency – encourage/require transparency in WG members – this is the submarine patent issue
• No organizations last forever. Any output that requires any kind of maintenance requires an exit strategy. Best to avoid. Documents are easy to pass on, operations are not.
• Outputs do not necessarily require an RDA connection. Perfectly acceptable for a WG to produce a lot of discussion and demos and then have five different organizations go off and implement variations thereof with no direct RDA connection other than acknowledgement. DARPA has no ongoing role in managing the Internet but gets tremendous credibility for being its birthplace.
• RDA is not a standards body. Standards bodies are the opposite of agile. RDA wants to be agile.
• Approval process — any official output will have to go through an approval process, presumably the Council as advised by public discussion, the TAB and, possibly OAB and other WGs/IGs.”

The team then discussed the following.

Our central goal is wide spread adoption and reuse, so things should be as open as possible but allowing specific groups more restriction. IP should be as simple as possible. We need to allow flexibility.

Our default position needs to be fiully open with any varience described in the WG case statement. We then need process for change mid-way, but exception needs to require justification and be formally approved.
We want to avoid underhanded practice like submarine patents.

We are thinking that formally, RDA should only produce documents (everything is owned by others). We may want to look to IETF as a model (invite a guest?) they own RFCs (structure) but ideas and code are owned by individuals. We can then have soft policy/advice to encourage openness iby individuals. Maybe include some examples with pros and cons.

Along those lines, Herman Stehouwer (Sect) and Peter Wittenburg proposed a document policy.

Action: All review proposed policy and comment

Discussion