Child pages
  • Consultation - REFEDS Strategy
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This consultation is open from Monday 27th September 2021 at 17:00 CEST to Monday 25th October at 17:00 CEST

Background

For a number of years, REFEDS has operated solely from an annual workplan, with items being added annually in consultation with the community.  Whilst this has allowed REFEDS to be somewhat agile in delivering and highly consultative with its community, it has not addressed issues such as the core purpose of REFEDS and it's high-level direction. 

To this end, the REFEDS Steering Committee has prepared a draft Strategic Plan for REFEDS and the community is invited to comment on this proposed document. 

Overview

This consultation will be open from Monday 27th September 2021 at 17:00 CEST to Monday 25th October at 17:00 CEST

Participants are invited to:

  • consider the proposed Strategic Plan
  • propose appropriate changes / challenges to the proposed text, and
  • reflect on whether the plan is representative of the strategic position of REFEDS.

The document for the consultation is available as a pdf attachment.  All comments should be made on: consultations@lists.refeds.org or added to the changelog below.  Comments posted to other lists will not be included in the consultation review.

Change Log


comment #Line/Reference #Proposed Change or QueryProposer / AffiliationAction / Decision (please leave blank)
128-33Propose changing Critical Success Factor #1 so it reads more about "engagement" through the meetings, discussion lists, and Slack Channels. "Attendance" feels like just counting people in seats at meetings (unless this factor is defined in a parent document).Mark Rank - Cirrus Identity
228-44Propose the Critical Success Factor (CSF) "Sustainable Standards Development Process and Adoption" be the #1 CSF. While the others are important, standards development and adoption feels like the most critical (unless this order is defined in a parent document). Mark Rank - Cirrus Identity
312Request clarification of the term "Research Infrastructures". It is not clear if  projects like LIGO or CILogon are "Research Infrastructures" and thereby in the primary audience or are SPs and therefore in the secondary audience.Scott Koranda - CILogon
438Sudden appearance of the term "academic federation". If this is the same as "R&E ... federation" in line 6 then it should use the same term. If it's different, then the difference needs to be explainedAndrew Cormack - Jisc
5



6



7



8



  • No labels