This consultation is now closed.


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. 


This consultation was 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: 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 IdentityText revised.
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 IdentityOrder changed.
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 - CILogonThe differentiation between primary and secondary has been removed.
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 - JiscLanguage updated to use the same term.
5n/aThings missing - promotion or advocacy of federationsAlan Buxey
67Lose the word "common"Jon AglandI disagree with this; best practice might be out of reach for so many. We're talking about the best that everyone should be able to do.
7n/a I’d love to have stronger reference to goals of free inquiry and collaboration in creating and disseminating knowledge.David St Pierre BantzAdded "Individuals build relationships and develop common ways of working through solving problems and free inquiry into possibilities."
 Is it intentional that there is no mention of tools?Eric GoodmanYes
9Valuescuriosity, inclusivity, guidance, openness, depth of expertise, transparent (rather than open). Enthusiasm is good, but maybe not mission related. Participation, collaboration, pragmatismseveralThank you for all the options; some of these are not values as much as they are characteristic of the community.
10ValuesMissing something to do how we choose what to focus on.Tom Barton
11ValuesWe decide what’s going to get done via community consensus and enthusiasmAlan Buxey
12AudienceDon't have primary and secondary audiencesNicole RoyRemoved.
13AudienceI'd prefer to have developers instead of software maintainersDavid VaghettiLanguage updated
14GoalsTo be a forum for trust anchors instead of trust anchor in itself.  Audience saw eduGAIN as a trust anchor, not REFEDSseveralModified.
15Line 19Maybe replace efficient with effective in the first bullet?Ann WestLanguage updated.
16Line 16Change proposal: A critically important forum for maintaining trust among stakeholders.Tom Barton
17Line 23 missing: standards get adopted and widely usedDavid St Pierre Bantz This isn't something we can measure.
18Line 28 missing here: attendees’ demographics reflects stakeholders and beneficiaries of REFEDSDavid St Pierre Bantz
19GoalsShould there be something about expansion of the set of stakeholders? Maybe growing slowly, but not stagnant. New communities, new blood.Tom BartonWe don't have a marketing/advocacy capacity to include the expansion of our efforts beyond community word-of-mouth.
20Line 38Is it really “academic” ? Possibly not directly analogous to R&ENicole Roy
21Line 37Wonder if we should note that the process is reviewed/iteratively improved (eg fit for purpose in a changing world)Alan Buxey
22Line 41Bit unclear whether “training partners” is a noun, or whether we are training “partners”Hannah ShortThe language would be different. It would be "by training partners" if the latter, whereas "through training partners" is the former.
23generalCSF3 refers to both members and participants.  Are they in the Audience statement from earlier?  Maybe the CSF and the Audience slides need to be more in alignment.Andrew MorganLanguage reviwed
24generalAdd CSF about advocacy.Tom Barton
25generalNo Vision?Alan BuxeyNo, we didn't create one.

  • No labels