This consultation is now closed.
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 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: 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 Query | Proposer / Affiliation | Action / Decision (please leave blank) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 28-33 | Propose 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 | |
| 2 | 28-44 | Propose 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 | |
| 3 | 12 | Request 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 | |
| 4 | 38 | Sudden 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 explained | Andrew Cormack - Jisc | |
| 5 | n/a | Things missing - promotion or advocacy of federations | Alan Buxey | |
| 6 | 7 | Lose the word "common" | Jon Agland | |
| 7 | n/a | I’d love to have stronger reference to goals of free inquiry and collaboration in creating and disseminating knowledge. | David St Pierre Bantz | |
| 8 | Is it intentional that there is no mention of tools? | Eric Goodman | ||
| 9 | Values | curiosity, inclusivity, guidance, openness, depth of expertise, transparent (rather than open). Enthusiasm is good, but maybe not mission related. Participation, collaboration, pragmatism | several | |
| 10 | Values | Missing something to do how we choose what to focus on. | Tom Barton | |
| 11 | Values | We decide what’s going to get done via community consensus and enthusiasm | Alan Buxey | |
| 12 | Audience | Don't have primary and secondary audiences | Nicole Roy | |
| 13 | Audience | I'd prefer to have developers instead of software maintainers | David Vaghetti | |
| 14 | Goals | To be a forum for trust anchors instead of trust anchor in itself. Audience saw eduGAIN as a trust anchor, not REFEDS | several | |
| 15 | Line 19 | Maybe replace efficient with effective in the first bullet? | Ann West | |
| 16 | Line 16 | Change proposal: A critically important forum for maintaining trust among stakeholders. | Tom Barton | |
| 17 | Line 23 | missing: standards get adopted and widely used | David St Pierre Bantz | |
| 18 | Line 28 | missing here: attendees’ demographics reflects stakeholders and beneficiaries of REFEDS | David St Pierre Bantz | |
| 19 | Goals | Should there be something about expansion of the set of stakeholders? Maybe growing slowly, but not stagnant. New communities, new blood. | Tom Barton | |
| 20 | Line 38 | Is it really “academic” ? Possibly not directly analogous to R&E | Nicole Roy | |
| 21 | Line 37 | Wonder if we should note that the process is reviewed/iteratively improved (eg fit for purpose in a changing world) | Alan Buxey | |
| 22 | Line 41 | Bit unclear whether “training partners” is a noun, or whether we are training “partners” | Hannah Short | |
| 23 | general | CSF3 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 Morgan | |
| 24 | general | Add CSF about advocacy. | Tom Barton | |
| 25 | general | No Vision? | Alan Buxey | |