Page 1 of 1

Case Statement: Practical Policy

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:01 pm
by HermanStehouwer
The Practical Policy group have submitted their statement.

Here it is.

Re: Case Statement: Practical Policy

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:17 pm
by pwittenburg
Dear Reagan, Rainer and colleagues,

let me add a few comments to your case statement:

• In general I found the description of goals (categorization, analysis and sample sets), value proposition, etc. convincing.
• Also the engagement seems to be excellent since people are already contributed to the wiki with rule sets and the deadline seems to be possible to achieve.
• The adoption statement sounds a bit weak, but I guess that it is a fair description of the expectation.
• Even some more people of practice should be involved if possible. So raising sensitivity beyond the current group for this issue could even improve the results and the impact.

Peter Wittenburg

Case Statement: SB Comments

PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:02 am
by stotzka
Dear RDA SB group,

Thanks a lot for the supporting comments and we are looking forward to
the meeting in Gothenburg.

One answer to the "overall" comment:
The RDA SB subgroup likes the fact that the candidate WG collects policies from
members – will there be a public place where non-members can contribute policies, too?


Definitely yes, Currently we are using a wiki provided by Reagan and
the wiki location is known by the group/mailing list members. As far
as I see the wiki allows that every interested user can register, read
and contribute. So it can be easily transformed to a public place by
publishing the location, if desired.

Breadth of membership: This appears to be primarily an EU / US effort –
the leaders are encouraged to develop a plan to include other regions.

Members from all locations are welcome to contribute.
Currently Colin Wright from South Africa is the only non-US/EC member. I think
latest at the Gothenburg meeting we will actively invite more experts.
I am sure Andrew can help to point out some "antipodian" experts.

Comment by Reagan:
We do have contacts in Union of South Africa, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, and
New Zealand who may be interested in joining.

Re: Case Statement: Practical Policy

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:45 pm
by rwmoore
The Practical Policy working group met at the Research Data Alliance meeting on March 19, 2013. A discussion was held on the types of policies that are of interest, the policies that were already submitted were reviewed, and a new time line was constructed for deliverables. Slides from the meeting are attached.

The revised time line is:

End of June, 2013 - submit policies used in your production system to the MediaWiki, http://centosext1.irods.renci.org/irods ... cal_Policy

End of july, 2013 - vote on which submitted policies are of interest to your site
End of August, 2013 - an implementation of the rule set will be made on a testbed at UNC-CH
September 2013 - demonstrate policies at the next RDA meeting in Washington DC
End of December 2013 - complete second round of policy submissions
End of January 2014 - vote on policies that will be useful within your center
End of February 2014 - vote on generic versions of the policies used by at least half of the members
March 2014 - implementation of the policies on a testbed

Reagan Moore

Re: Case Statement: Practical Policy

PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:47 pm
by rwmoore
Slides from meeting on March 19, 2013

Re: Case Statement: Practical Policy

PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:51 pm
by parsonsm
Council is obtaining an independent technical review of this Working Group. Below is the letter the Council sent the group chairs prior to the Launch.

The group had active and fruitful discussions in Göteborg. They are proceeding to work on the deliverables outlined in the case statement.

Letter from Council:
Dear Reagan and Rainer,
 
In the last few weeks the RDA Council received an initial group of Case Statements for assessment and we are writing to you to provide a response to your submission. We very much appreciate your discussions which have been, and continue to be, an important part of establishing and building the RDA as an organization that can have substantial impact and effectiveness within the data community.
 
The process for assessing the Case Statements was as follows:  The Liaisons for each of the submitting groups were asked to provide a technical assessment of the Case Statement.  Council used these assessments in a substantial way to assess the potential impact of the effort.  Council closely read the Case Statement as well as RDA Forum discussions for the group in order to get a sense of the discussion and participation.  (We were also aware that at this point, part of the discussion for some groups were not conducted on the RDA Forum).  Council’s assessment of the impact and alignment with the RDA mission included a strong focus on whether the Case Statement included concrete deliverables that would directly or indirectly enable a research community of practice and would be adopted by Working Group members during the effort.
 
For this Case Statement, Council wanted to avoid a potential conflict of interest and factor in additional expertise, therefore Council will solicit independent technical advice before assessing the Case Statement.
 
If it is useful, we would like to meet the chairs of your group to discuss this decision with you, and hope to do so during the Plenary meeting in Gothenburg next week. Ross Wilkinson (ross.wilkinson@ands.org.au) and Fran Berman (bermaf@rpi.edu) will be available on Sunday to answer any questions or discuss if you are arriving early, and otherwise all of us (including John Wood [john.wood@acu.ac.uk]) will work with you to find a time during the three days to meet with you.
 
We appreciate your group’s discussion and engagement with the RDA and look forward to seeing you in Gothenburg.
 
Ross, Fran, and John

Re: Case Statement: Practical Policy

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:12 pm
by HermanStehouwer
Startpost updated with the case statement that will be reviewed by the new reviewers.

Counsil decision

PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:54 pm
by stotzka
Dear Practical-Policy Group Members,

Sorry for the late notification …
RDA Counsil has sent a review of our case statement and recommends the acceptance
of our WG if some recommendations are fulfilled, see below.

Reagan was so kind to update the case statement accordingly, see attachment:
- deleted two short references to policies that control analysis workflows,
- added a sentence stating that we encourage both English language descriptions and computer actionable code,
- and added a table describing the current policies that have been submitted (almost all are English descriptions)

Any suggestions, comments, additional recommendations?

Best regards,
RAiner
---------------
From: Berman, Fran [mailto:BERMAF@rpi.edu]
Subject: Practical Policy

Reagan and Rainer,
Council received the technical review of the Practical Policy case statement a couple of weeks ago and discussed the document at our meeting last week in Vancouver. We are happy to share with you that the Practical Policy Case Statement is endorsed as an RDA Working Group subject to the 4 revisions below as recommended by the technical reviewer. (Review is attached). We believe these recommendations will help the WG outcomes align well with the mission of RDA and create focused impact. Please send a revised Case Statement to Fran Berman (bermaf@rpi.edu) and Tony Hey (Tony.Hey@microsoft.com) by July 7 with the recommended revisions. We expect to respond to the revised Case Statement within a week of its submission. Thanks very much for your patience with this process and we look forward to the revised Case Statement and strong impact from the Practical Policy Working Group.
Fran and Tony (on behalf of Council)

PRACTICAL POLICY CASE STATEMENT Endorsed subject to the following revisions:
1. WG limits its scope to focus on those who manage data collections and those who seek policy starter kits
2. The WG adopts a human readable form in addition to any software forms of representations the group agrees upon
3. The WG creates a testbed located at at least 3 different institutions running at least 3 different kinds of data management software (e.g. IRODS, DCache and DataVerse) with at least 1-2 policy exemplars
4. The WG provides a list of organizations and people who will stand up the testbed and SW that will run on the testbed.


Dr. Francine Berman
Chair, Research Data Alliance / U.S.
Edward G. Hamilton Distinguished Professor in Computer Science
Director, Center for a Digital Society
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~bermaf/