Change of working group to interest group.

Hi Chris,
Frankly I believe an I.G. would be more appropriate for a long-term effort on monitoring urban life-quality.
The matter brings into sharp focus the unreasonable-ness of the RDA in expecting scientists to drop what they may
currently be engaged in and work full-time on an RDA project in order to keep within its unrealistic 18-month rule.
Most researchers have other commitments, and many are not funded in a way that can accept abandonment for long
enough to see some extraneous project through. Many projects cannot be accomplished on a 12 to 18-month
timescale, and the objectives may well not perform the necessary changes, or improvements, or whatever is to be
measured and modelled, in appreciably less than 18 months, and trying to force them to do so is quite unscientific.
I hope a lot of other WG make similar comments, so that the RDA may begin to recognise the over-ambitiousness
of its rules in the context of quality scientific research.
Elizabeth
- Show quoted text -From: cpettit=***@***.***-groups.org [cpettit=***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of cpettit [***@***.***]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 9:16 PM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [rda_urbanqli_wg] Change of working group to interest group.
Hi All,
We have recently had feedback from the RDA TAB regarding our case statement for the working group. The feedback I have attached below.
The co-chairs of the working group have discussed this and we believe it would best if we change our RDA working group to an RDA interest group. This has the advantage of giving us flexibility to undertake those activities we wish to undertake under the umbrella of RDA without have to get sign-off through the case statement approach that working groups have to go through. It also means we are not time bound on our activities which a couple of you have raised concerns on previously.
If there are any further comments on this please let us know by the 29th of Nov at which point we would like to inform the TAB of our decision to move to an RDA Interest Group.
Also, can people let me know if you are able to make the San Diego 5th Plenary session. I intend on going and hope others can make it also.
Regards
Chris
From: Andrew Treloar <***@***.***>
Reply-To: "***@***.***-groups.org" <***@***.***-groups.org>
Date: Friday, 14 November 2014 9:46 am
To: Chris Pettit <***@***.***>, "RDA Technical Advisory Board (TAB)" <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: [tab] Decision on Urban QoL Indicators WG
Dear Chris,
thanks for your time this morning to discuss this case statement.
Let me start by thanking you and your group members for your patience as we worked with you through the process of refining the document.
RDA Working group outcomes or “deliverables” should facilitate tangible progress towards innovation for a significant cohort within the international data community. There are many ways to make progress and Working Group outcomes /deliverables may come in a variety of forms including:
* New data standards or harmonization of existing standards. RDA WGs focusing on standards and harmonization should include specific communities who will benefit from this effort and who will adopt the new or harmonized standards, effectively putting them into “action” at the completion of the Working Group. (RDA is not a standards organization comparable to the ISO for example. It draws on the rough consensus approach of the IETF)
* Greater data sharing, exchange, interoperability, usability and re-usability. RDA WGs focusing on data sharing, exchange, interoperability, usability, and/or re-usability should evolve or create new infrastructure, tools, technologies, services, approaches, policies, or other vehicles that improve upon current practice for a significant cohort within the data community. Deliverables for this work should be adopted / put into practice by WG members, at the least.
* Greater discoverability of research data sets. RDA WGs focusing on data discoverability should evolve or create new infrastructure, tools, technologies, registries, approaches, policies, or other vehicles that facilitate the discoverability of research data beyond current practice for a significant cohort. Deliverables for this work should include adoption of those vehicles. (For these purposes, “research data” is broadly defined to be digital data sets generated or used by the research community)
* Better management, stewardship, and preservation of research data. RDA WGs focusing on management, stewardship, and preservation should evolve or create practice, policy, infrastructure, and/or other appropriate vehicles, and facilitate their adoption/implementation within Working Group institutions and organizations and beyond.
TAB sees the value of the work you are proposing, but also recognises that you will need to undertake a significant amount of preparatory activity before you can produce the kind of concrete output that RDA is looking for from a Working Group. We also recognise that the 12-18 month timeframe for a WG will make it difficult for you to complete the preparatory work and produce the output.
We would therefore like to propose two possible courses of action:
1. Refine the case statement to make it clear that one of the WG deliverables will be a tangible output, beyond a report mapping the space. The proposed Data Dictionary would be such an output.
2. Convert the WG into an Interest Group. Interest Groups can run for much longer than Working Groups, and would give you the time required for the preparatory investigative work you envisage. You could then spin up a Working Group to produce the concrete deliverable (or even produce this as a byproduct of Interest Group activity). If you decided to take the IG option, RDA will work with you to reduce the approval hurdles to the bare minimum (and with the smallest impact possible on your group).

Elizabeth wrote:
RDA responds to proposals from interested parties. RDA does have rather firm expectations for WGs, which the proposers need to take into account. In this case it looks like the community that proposed the work package may now have decided that it cannot meet these expectations, so will use a different mechanism within RDA. But I don't think it is correct to say that RDA has over-ambitious rules, just that communities need to be clear about how they can meet them. Looks like the correct outcome to me, which has not involved RDA modifying any rules.
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: elizabeth.griffin=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of remgriffin
Sent: Monday, 24 November 2014 1:45 AM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Cc: Griffin, Elizabeth
Subject: Re: [rda_urbanqli_wg] Change of working group to interest group.
Hi Chris,
Frankly I believe an I.G. would be more appropriate for a long-term effort on monitoring urban life-quality.
The matter brings into sharp focus the unreasonable-ness of the RDA in expecting scientists to drop what they may currently be engaged in and work full-time on an RDA project in order to keep within its unrealistic 18-month rule.
Most researchers have other commitments, and many are not funded in a way that can accept abandonment for long enough to see some extraneous project through. Many projects cannot be accomplished on a 12 to 18-month timescale, and the objectives may well not perform the necessary changes, or improvements, or whatever is to be measured and modelled, in appreciably less than 18 months, and trying to force them to do so is quite unscientific.
I hope a lot of other WG make similar comments, so that the RDA may begin to recognise the over-ambitiousness of its rules in the context of quality scientific research.
Elizabeth
________________________________________
From: cpettit=***@***.***-groups.org [cpettit=***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of cpettit [***@***.***]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 9:16 PM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [rda_urbanqli_wg] Change of working group to interest group.
Hi All,
We have recently had feedback from the RDA TAB regarding our case statement for the working group. The feedback I have attached below.
The co-chairs of the working group have discussed this and we believe it would best if we change our RDA working group to an RDA interest group. This has the advantage of giving us flexibility to undertake those activities we wish to undertake under the umbrella of RDA without have to get sign-off through the case statement approach that working groups have to go through. It also means we are not time bound on our activities which a couple of you have raised concerns on previously.
If there are any further comments on this please let us know by the 29th of Nov at which point we would like to inform the TAB of our decision to move to an RDA Interest Group.
Also, can people let me know if you are able to make the San Diego 5th Plenary session. I intend on going and hope others can make it also.
Regards
Chris
From: Andrew Treloar <***@***.***>
Reply-To: "***@***.***-groups.org" <***@***.***-groups.org>
Date: Friday, 14 November 2014 9:46 am
To: Chris Pettit <***@***.***>, "RDA Technical Advisory Board (TAB)" <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: [tab] Decision on Urban QoL Indicators WG
Dear Chris,
thanks for your time this morning to discuss this case statement.
Let me start by thanking you and your group members for your patience as we worked with you through the process of refining the document.
RDA Working group outcomes or "deliverables" should facilitate tangible progress towards innovation for a significant cohort within the international data community. There are many ways to make progress and Working Group outcomes /deliverables may come in a variety of forms including:
* New data standards or harmonization of existing standards. RDA WGs focusing on standards and harmonization should include specific communities who will benefit from this effort and who will adopt the new or harmonized standards, effectively putting them into "action" at the completion of the Working Group. (RDA is not a standards organization comparable to the ISO for example. It draws on the rough consensus approach of the IETF)
* Greater data sharing, exchange, interoperability, usability and re-usability. RDA WGs focusing on data sharing, exchange, interoperability, usability, and/or re-usability should evolve or create new infrastructure, tools, technologies, services, approaches, policies, or other vehicles that improve upon current practice for a significant cohort within the data community. Deliverables for this work should be adopted / put into practice by WG members, at the least.
* Greater discoverability of research data sets. RDA WGs focusing on data discoverability should evolve or create new infrastructure, tools, technologies, registries, approaches, policies, or other vehicles that facilitate the discoverability of research data beyond current practice for a significant cohort. Deliverables for this work should include adoption of those vehicles. (For these purposes, "research data" is broadly defined to be digital data sets generated or used by the research community)
* Better management, stewardship, and preservation of research data. RDA WGs focusing on management, stewardship, and preservation should evolve or create practice, policy, infrastructure, and/or other appropriate vehicles, and facilitate their adoption/implementation within Working Group institutions and organizations and beyond.
TAB sees the value of the work you are proposing, but also recognises that you will need to undertake a significant amount of preparatory activity before you can produce the kind of concrete output that RDA is looking for from a Working Group. We also recognise that the 12-18 month timeframe for a WG will make it difficult for you to complete the preparatory work and produce the output.
We would therefore like to propose two possible courses of action:
1. Refine the case statement to make it clear that one of the WG deliverables will be a tangible output, beyond a report mapping the space. The proposed Data Dictionary would be such an output.
2. Convert the WG into an Interest Group. Interest Groups can run for much longer than Working Groups, and would give you the time required for the preparatory investigative work you envisage. You could then spin up a Working Group to produce the concrete deliverable (or even produce this as a byproduct of Interest Group activity). If you decided to take the IG option, RDA will work with you to reduce the approval hurdles to the bare minimum (and with the smallest impact possible on your group).

> I don't think it is correct to say that RDA has over-ambitious rules, just that communities need to be clear about how they can
> meet them.
Put it another way: It seems that the people who created a vision for the RDA cannot have much practical experience of how
the gatherers of those research data actually have to operate!
Put it another way: It seems that the people who created a vision for the RDA cannot have much practical experience of how
the gatherers of those research data actually have to operate!
Elizabeth

Hi Elizabeth,
Thanks for your response indicating you support the conversion to an
Interest Group.
Regards
Chris
On 24/11/2014 1:45 am, "remgriffin" <***@***.***-cnrc.gc.ca>
wrote:

Hi All,
I will proceed in letting the RDA know we are keen to change our WG into an IG.
Propose we call it Urban Quality of Life Interest Group and drop the ‘indicators’ this will mean we can focus on a wide array of urban related data issues.
Hopefully this is ok with everyone, otherwise let me know.
Regards
Chris
From: Chris Pettit <***@***.***>
Date: Saturday, 22 November 2014 1:15 pm
To: RDA Urban Quality of Life <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: Change of working group to interest group.
Hi All,
We have recently had feedback from the RDA TAB regarding our case statement for the working group. The feedback I have attached below.
The co-chairs of the working group have discussed this and we believe it would best if we change our RDA working group to an RDA interest group. This has the advantage of giving us flexibility to undertake those activities we wish to undertake under the umbrella of RDA without have to get sign-off through the case statement approach that working groups have to go through. It also means we are not time bound on our activities which a couple of you have raised concerns on previously.
If there are any further comments on this please let us know by the 29th of Nov at which point we would like to inform the TAB of our decision to move to an RDA Interest Group.
Also, can people let me know if you are able to make the San Diego 5th Plenary session. I intend on going and hope others can make it also.
Regards
Chris
From: Andrew Treloar <***@***.***>
Reply-To: "***@***.***-groups.org" <***@***.***-groups.org>
Date: Friday, 14 November 2014 9:46 am
To: Chris Pettit <***@***.***>, "RDA Technical Advisory Board (TAB)" <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: [tab] Decision on Urban QoL Indicators WG
Dear Chris,
thanks for your time this morning to discuss this case statement.
Let me start by thanking you and your group members for your patience as we worked with you through the process of refining the document.
RDA Working group outcomes or “deliverables” should facilitate tangible progress towards innovation for a significant cohort within the international data community. There are many ways to make progress and Working Group outcomes /deliverables may come in a variety of forms including:
* New data standards or harmonization of existing standards. RDA WGs focusing on standards and harmonization should include specific communities who will benefit from this effort and who will adopt the new or harmonized standards, effectively putting them into “action” at the completion of the Working Group. (RDA is not a standards organization comparable to the ISO for example. It draws on the rough consensus approach of the IETF)
* Greater data sharing, exchange, interoperability, usability and re-usability. RDA WGs focusing on data sharing, exchange, interoperability, usability, and/or re-usability should evolve or create new infrastructure, tools, technologies, services, approaches, policies, or other vehicles that improve upon current practice for a significant cohort within the data community. Deliverables for this work should be adopted / put into practice by WG members, at the least.
* Greater discoverability of research data sets. RDA WGs focusing on data discoverability should evolve or create new infrastructure, tools, technologies, registries, approaches, policies, or other vehicles that facilitate the discoverability of research data beyond current practice for a significant cohort. Deliverables for this work should include adoption of those vehicles. (For these purposes, “research data” is broadly defined to be digital data sets generated or used by the research community)
* Better management, stewardship, and preservation of research data. RDA WGs focusing on management, stewardship, and preservation should evolve or create practice, policy, infrastructure, and/or other appropriate vehicles, and facilitate their adoption/implementation within Working Group institutions and organizations and beyond.
TAB sees the value of the work you are proposing, but also recognises that you will need to undertake a significant amount of preparatory activity before you can produce the kind of concrete output that RDA is looking for from a Working Group. We also recognise that the 12-18 month timeframe for a WG will make it difficult for you to complete the preparatory work and produce the output.
We would therefore like to propose two possible courses of action:
1. Refine the case statement to make it clear that one of the WG deliverables will be a tangible output, beyond a report mapping the space. The proposed Data Dictionary would be such an output.
2. Convert the WG into an Interest Group. Interest Groups can run for much longer than Working Groups, and would give you the time required for the preparatory investigative work you envisage. You could then spin up a Working Group to produce the concrete deliverable (or even produce this as a byproduct of Interest Group activity). If you decided to take the IG option, RDA will work with you to reduce the approval hurdles to the bare minimum (and with the smallest impact possible on your group).