From 45dc2951a902f49705f5aa148baf5e990b2f43b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hari Sood Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 18:32:19 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 01/12] Initial thoughts on WG process --- governance/working-groups.md | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) create mode 100644 governance/working-groups.md diff --git a/governance/working-groups.md b/governance/working-groups.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a072e3b --- /dev/null +++ b/governance/working-groups.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +# Working groups + +## Intro +- What a working group is +- What it isn't (endorsement) + +## Process + +x. Working group creates a working group charter +x. Charter is reviewed by the CMWG + - To make sure it is: + - In line with community principles + - Is not already being undertaken elsewhere in the community. In this case, we will point the proposers towards this work +x. If not approved, CMWG provides necessary changes back to the WG +x. Once approved, working group charter is opened for discussion on GitHub with wider community for 2 weeks +x. If no key problems arise from community review, WG is formally established and is made live on the UK TRE Community website, with point of contact, summary etc. + - Think about methods for outreach to community about this +x. Working group carries out work, and reports at a minimum (? in community meetings, quarterly...?) on progress +x. When working group has outputs they would like to share with the community, they submit them to the CMWG +x. CMWG either rejects outputs (with reason provided), accepts them for distribution, or accepts them and formally endorses them +x. Working group chairs confirm dissolution of the working group (using a template) + - See the [RDA options for closing out a WG](https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/creating-and-managing-rda-groups/creating-or-joining-rda-working-group.html#:~:text=Closing%20out%20a%20Working%20Group) + + +## Participants +- Clearly defined chair/co-chair + - More than one? + +## Commitments +- Making all their outputs open source +- To allow anyone interested to join the group +- To provide updates at community meetings on progress +- Understanding that the outputs won't necessarily be formally endorsed by the UK TRE Community \ No newline at end of file From fa7199908ff00e6b24b48f5ca7644efe82b13fc7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hari Sood Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:54:14 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 02/12] Establishing a working group --- governance/working groups/index.md | 48 +++++++++++++++++++ .../working groups/working-group-charter.md | 15 ++++++ governance/working-groups.md | 33 ------------- 3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) create mode 100644 governance/working groups/index.md create mode 100644 governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md delete mode 100644 governance/working-groups.md diff --git a/governance/working groups/index.md b/governance/working groups/index.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a353abb --- /dev/null +++ b/governance/working groups/index.md @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +# Working groups + +For the UK TRE Community, a Working Group (WG) is the main method through which community outputs are created. + +WGs can be set up by any member of the community, and are focused on producing specific, tangible outputs within a given time period, and are modelled off the pre-existing concept of Working Groups found in communities like [DARE UK](https://dareuk.org.uk/dare-uk-launches-dynamic-collaborative-communities-invites-proposals-for-new-groups/), the [Research Data Alliance (RDA)](https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/creating-and-managing-rda-groups/creating-or-joining-rda-working-group.html), the [W3C](https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#GAGeneral) and more. + +There are two distinct processes for those considering creating WGs to consider: +1. The establishment of the WG +2. The community endorsement of the WG outputs + +As the UK TRE community's primary focus is to act as a signposting and convening body for the TRE space in the UK and beyond, we have made a conscious effort to separate out the questions of: +- Work that is happening within the community (WG establishment) +- Outputs/resources for which there is community consensus and endorsement (community endorsement) + +Therefore it is important to note that establishing a WG with the UK TRE community **does not** imply any outputs of the WG are endorsed by the UK TRE Community. + + +## Process + +### Establishing a Working group + +1. Member(s) suggesting a working group fill in the [Working Group Charter](working-group-charter.md). +2. The Charter is reviewed by the [Steering Group]() to ensure it: + - Aligns with [community principles]() + - Represents new work being undertaken in the community +3. If the Charter is rejected by the [Steering Group](), feedback is provided to the submitting member(s) on why, and the Working Group returns to step 1. +4. If the Charter is approved by the [Steering Group](), the Charter is made available for community review on the [UK TRE GitHub](https://github.com/uk-tre/community-management) for a period of 2 weeks. +5. If, after a period of 2 weeks, there are no unresolved objections to the Charter, the working group is established :tada: +6. If there are unresolved objections, these are reviewed by the [Steering Group](). Any outstanding objections requiring review after this are collated and shared with the Working Group proposers for updating the charter, and the Working Group returns to step 4. +7. Once a Working Group is established, they are formally recognised on the [UK TRE Community website](https://www.uktre.org/), and the community is notified of its creation. + +### Endorsing Working Group outputs + +1. When a WG has outputs ready to share with the community, they notify the [Steering Group]() +x. CMWG either rejects outputs (with reason provided), accepts them for distribution, or accepts them and formally endorses them +x. Working group chairs confirm dissolution of the working group (using a template) + - See the [RDA options for closing out a WG](https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/creating-and-managing-rda-groups/creating-or-joining-rda-working-group.html#:~:text=Closing%20out%20a%20Working%20Group) + + +## Participants +- Clearly defined chair/co-chair + - More than one? + +## Commitments +- Making all their outputs open source +- To allow anyone interested to join the group +- To provide updates at community meetings on progress +- Understanding that the outputs won't necessarily be formally endorsed by the UK TRE Community \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d22377e --- /dev/null +++ b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +# Working group charter template + +- Summary +- Chair(s) +- Target outputs +- Meeting mechanisms +- Communication mechanisms +- Stakeholders to engage +- Roles within working group (participating member, informed member etc.) +- Expected time commitment from participants + +## Agree to +- Licence of outputs +- Non-discrimination of participation +- Reporting at x duration \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/governance/working-groups.md b/governance/working-groups.md deleted file mode 100644 index a072e3b..0000000 --- a/governance/working-groups.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,33 +0,0 @@ -# Working groups - -## Intro -- What a working group is -- What it isn't (endorsement) - -## Process - -x. Working group creates a working group charter -x. Charter is reviewed by the CMWG - - To make sure it is: - - In line with community principles - - Is not already being undertaken elsewhere in the community. In this case, we will point the proposers towards this work -x. If not approved, CMWG provides necessary changes back to the WG -x. Once approved, working group charter is opened for discussion on GitHub with wider community for 2 weeks -x. If no key problems arise from community review, WG is formally established and is made live on the UK TRE Community website, with point of contact, summary etc. - - Think about methods for outreach to community about this -x. Working group carries out work, and reports at a minimum (? in community meetings, quarterly...?) on progress -x. When working group has outputs they would like to share with the community, they submit them to the CMWG -x. CMWG either rejects outputs (with reason provided), accepts them for distribution, or accepts them and formally endorses them -x. Working group chairs confirm dissolution of the working group (using a template) - - See the [RDA options for closing out a WG](https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/creating-and-managing-rda-groups/creating-or-joining-rda-working-group.html#:~:text=Closing%20out%20a%20Working%20Group) - - -## Participants -- Clearly defined chair/co-chair - - More than one? - -## Commitments -- Making all their outputs open source -- To allow anyone interested to join the group -- To provide updates at community meetings on progress -- Understanding that the outputs won't necessarily be formally endorsed by the UK TRE Community \ No newline at end of file From e9cc1586a9083252a5a00c64a85ea3bb6fda027d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hari Sood Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:06:57 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 03/12] Endorsing a Working Group --- governance/working groups/index.md | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/governance/working groups/index.md b/governance/working groups/index.md index a353abb..6fbb991 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/index.md +++ b/governance/working groups/index.md @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ Therefore it is important to note that establishing a WG with the UK TRE communi ## Process - ### Establishing a Working group 1. Member(s) suggesting a working group fill in the [Working Group Charter](working-group-charter.md). @@ -24,7 +23,7 @@ Therefore it is important to note that establishing a WG with the UK TRE communi - Aligns with [community principles]() - Represents new work being undertaken in the community 3. If the Charter is rejected by the [Steering Group](), feedback is provided to the submitting member(s) on why, and the Working Group returns to step 1. -4. If the Charter is approved by the [Steering Group](), the Charter is made available for community review on the [UK TRE GitHub](https://github.com/uk-tre/community-management) for a period of 2 weeks. +4. If the Charter is approved by the [Steering Group](), the Charter is made available for community review via an Issue on the [UK TRE GitHub](https://github.com/uk-tre/community-management) for a period of 2 weeks. 5. If, after a period of 2 weeks, there are no unresolved objections to the Charter, the working group is established :tada: 6. If there are unresolved objections, these are reviewed by the [Steering Group](). Any outstanding objections requiring review after this are collated and shared with the Working Group proposers for updating the charter, and the Working Group returns to step 4. 7. Once a Working Group is established, they are formally recognised on the [UK TRE Community website](https://www.uktre.org/), and the community is notified of its creation. @@ -32,10 +31,41 @@ Therefore it is important to note that establishing a WG with the UK TRE communi ### Endorsing Working Group outputs 1. When a WG has outputs ready to share with the community, they notify the [Steering Group]() -x. CMWG either rejects outputs (with reason provided), accepts them for distribution, or accepts them and formally endorses them -x. Working group chairs confirm dissolution of the working group (using a template) - - See the [RDA options for closing out a WG](https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/creating-and-managing-rda-groups/creating-or-joining-rda-working-group.html#:~:text=Closing%20out%20a%20Working%20Group) +2. The draft outputs are reviewed by the [Steering Group]() to ensure it: + - Aligns with [community principles]() +3. If approved by the [Steering Group](), the draft outputs are made available for community review via an Issue on the [UK TRE GitHub](https://github.com/uk-tre/community-management) for a period of 4 weeks. +4. At the end of this 4 week period, 3 outcomes are possible: + +#### Rejection +The community rejects the draft outputs of the WG. + +The [Steering Group]() will collate the reasons for rejection and share these with the WG. +The WG can decide to either close out the working group, or amend the outputs to resolve any reasons for rejection. + +#### Approved for distribution +The community approves the outputs for distribution. + +The UK TRE community will signpost to the outputs, but will not specifically endorse them. +The WG can decide to either close out the working group, or amend the outputs to work towards endorsement. + +#### Approved and endorsed +The community approves the outputs for distribution, and explicitly endorses them. + +The UK TRE community will signpost to the outputs, and formally endorse them publicly. + +The WG outputs will be tagged with a version referencing this endorsement. +If the WG wants to amend/update these outputs, they will have to go through the endorsement process above again. +No future versions beyond the tagged version are guaranteed to be endorsed by the community. + + +### Closing a Working Group + +1. The Working group completes the [Working Groups closure form]() confirming its termination. +2. The [Steering Group]() reviews this form, and when approved, lists this working group under `Historical Working Groups`. + +### Recommendations +- Engage the community throughout with draft material, to move towards consensus at the endorsement stage ## Participants - Clearly defined chair/co-chair From f08a0335f6874816a4e05853ad112979816635c5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hari Sood Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:20:42 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 04/12] Charter template --- governance/working groups/index.md | 16 ++---- .../working groups/working-group-charter.md | 50 ++++++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/governance/working groups/index.md b/governance/working groups/index.md index 6fbb991..a2dce39 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/index.md +++ b/governance/working groups/index.md @@ -63,16 +63,8 @@ No future versions beyond the tagged version are guaranteed to be endorsed by th 1. The Working group completes the [Working Groups closure form]() confirming its termination. 2. The [Steering Group]() reviews this form, and when approved, lists this working group under `Historical Working Groups`. - ### Recommendations -- Engage the community throughout with draft material, to move towards consensus at the endorsement stage - -## Participants -- Clearly defined chair/co-chair - - More than one? - -## Commitments -- Making all their outputs open source -- To allow anyone interested to join the group -- To provide updates at community meetings on progress -- Understanding that the outputs won't necessarily be formally endorsed by the UK TRE Community \ No newline at end of file +In order to maximise the chance of community endorsement for Working Group outputs, we recommend all working groups: +- Share regular updates with the wider community, to ensure co-creation and allow amendments to happen live, rather than at the end +- To carefully consider the scope, and target outputs, based on community feedback. If specific suggested outputs face pushback, are there higher level outputs that are more reflective of what the community needs? +- To carry out informal reviews of outputs with the community regularly, before requesting formal review. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md index d22377e..2311b95 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md +++ b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md @@ -1,15 +1,41 @@ # Working group charter template -- Summary -- Chair(s) -- Target outputs -- Meeting mechanisms -- Communication mechanisms -- Stakeholders to engage -- Roles within working group (participating member, informed member etc.) -- Expected time commitment from participants +## Overview + +This section should summarise in one or two paragraphs the Working group proposal, for any community member to read and quickly grasp the essence of the WG. + +## Background + +This section should dive into more detail on what the WG aims to address, why it is undertaking this work, and reference any background material/pre-existing work that this proposal builds on. + +## Target outputs +This section should contain the target outputs of the WG + +## Meeting mechanisms +This section should include details on how, where and when the WG intends to meet + +## Communication mechanisms +This section should outline how the WG intends to communicate progress with its members, the UK TRE Community more widely, and any other interested stakeholders. -## Agree to -- Licence of outputs -- Non-discrimination of participation -- Reporting at x duration \ No newline at end of file +## Working Group roles +This section should outline the different roles within the Working Group. Examples include: +- **Chairs**: Leaders of the WG +- **Contact**: Primary contact for the WG +- **Participating members**: Members who are undertaking work within the Working Group + +## Getting involved + +This section should detail how interested parties can get involved with joining the WG. + +It should also detail expected weekly time commitment for defined roles above + +## Agreement +*Please submit this charter with all boxes checked below* + +By submitting this charter, this working group agrees to: +- [ ] Share any outputs openly under a [CC BY 4.0 licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) +- [ ] Allow participation from any interested parties +- [ ] Report on progress at each quarterly community meeting for the duration of the Working Group + +- Stakeholders to engage +- Roles within working group (participating member, informed member etc.) \ No newline at end of file From 1fd90dc78fb4aa868af778abb3c21db653938cda Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hari Sood Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:28:15 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 05/12] Minor updates --- governance/working groups/index.md | 2 +- governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md | 7 ++----- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/governance/working groups/index.md b/governance/working groups/index.md index a2dce39..17eaeb1 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/index.md +++ b/governance/working groups/index.md @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ If the WG wants to amend/update these outputs, they will have to go through the No future versions beyond the tagged version are guaranteed to be endorsed by the community. -### Closing a Working Group +### Closing a Working Group 1. The Working group completes the [Working Groups closure form]() confirming its termination. 2. The [Steering Group]() reviews this form, and when approved, lists this working group under `Historical Working Groups`. diff --git a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md index 2311b95..7a87965 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md +++ b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ This section should summarise in one or two paragraphs the Working group proposal, for any community member to read and quickly grasp the essence of the WG. -## Background +## Background This section should dive into more detail on what the WG aims to address, why it is undertaking this work, and reference any background material/pre-existing work that this proposal builds on. @@ -35,7 +35,4 @@ It should also detail expected weekly time commitment for defined roles above By submitting this charter, this working group agrees to: - [ ] Share any outputs openly under a [CC BY 4.0 licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) - [ ] Allow participation from any interested parties -- [ ] Report on progress at each quarterly community meeting for the duration of the Working Group - -- Stakeholders to engage -- Roles within working group (participating member, informed member etc.) \ No newline at end of file +- [ ] Report on progress at each quarterly community meeting for the duration of the Working Group \ No newline at end of file From 720c01ba2943772a64e1dcfbe820e36b4e17c244 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Davsarper <118986872+Davsarper@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 16:54:17 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 06/12] Create steering_group.md Placeholder for steering group document --- governance/steering group/steering_group.md | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) create mode 100644 governance/steering group/steering_group.md diff --git a/governance/steering group/steering_group.md b/governance/steering group/steering_group.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0196203 --- /dev/null +++ b/governance/steering group/steering_group.md @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +# Steering group + +## What it is + +## What it does + +First version of content will be created here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1idAxXpAVWeiPZkpT6_z5OOKog6LHtvyHnOiF0fhIdaw/edit?usp=sharing then this document will be updated on GH From efd12ca6b07853930989c61bce1d598f953ccd8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hari Sood Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 11:38:20 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 07/12] Minor update on feedback (to be revisited) --- governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md index 7a87965..68889fb 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md +++ b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ This section should include details on how, where and when the WG intends to mee ## Communication mechanisms This section should outline how the WG intends to communicate progress with its members, the UK TRE Community more widely, and any other interested stakeholders. +This could include individual people, organisations, community groups and more who may be interested in or impacted by the work of the WG. + ## Working Group roles This section should outline the different roles within the Working Group. Examples include: - **Chairs**: Leaders of the WG From f3f331a744a47f4eebc3c5db093f8f42f0cc9991 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hari Sood Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:36:09 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 08/12] Tweaks based on CMWG review --- governance/steering group/steering_group.md | 2 +- governance/working groups/index.md | 39 +++++++++++-------- .../working groups/working-group-charter.md | 7 +++- 3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/governance/steering group/steering_group.md b/governance/steering group/steering_group.md index 0196203..bce800b 100644 --- a/governance/steering group/steering_group.md +++ b/governance/steering group/steering_group.md @@ -4,4 +4,4 @@ ## What it does -First version of content will be created here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1idAxXpAVWeiPZkpT6_z5OOKog6LHtvyHnOiF0fhIdaw/edit?usp=sharing then this document will be updated on GH +First version of content will be created here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t4_dTdJEQHZuuF_l915bo_P-lCv0jRHuHvHCus26a8w/edit?usp=sharing then this document will be updated on GH diff --git a/governance/working groups/index.md b/governance/working groups/index.md index 17eaeb1..9614ad5 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/index.md +++ b/governance/working groups/index.md @@ -1,14 +1,17 @@ # Working groups -For the UK TRE Community, a Working Group (WG) is the main method through which community outputs are created. +For the UK TRE Community, a Working Group (WG) is a space for members to come together to work and discuss on a topic. -WGs can be set up by any member of the community, and are focused on producing specific, tangible outputs within a given time period, and are modelled off the pre-existing concept of Working Groups found in communities like [DARE UK](https://dareuk.org.uk/dare-uk-launches-dynamic-collaborative-communities-invites-proposals-for-new-groups/), the [Research Data Alliance (RDA)](https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/creating-and-managing-rda-groups/creating-or-joining-rda-working-group.html), the [W3C](https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#GAGeneral) and more. +WGs can be set up by any member of the community, and are focused on producing specific, tangible outputs within a given time period. +They are modelled off the pre-existing concept of Working Groups found in communities like [DARE UK](https://dareuk.org.uk/dare-uk-launches-dynamic-collaborative-communities-invites-proposals-for-new-groups/), the [Research Data Alliance (RDA)](https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/creating-and-managing-rda-groups/creating-or-joining-rda-working-group.html), the [W3C](https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#GAGeneral), the [IETF](https://www.ietf.org/how/wgs/) and more. + +There are two distinct processes for those creating a WG to consider: -There are two distinct processes for those considering creating WGs to consider: 1. The establishment of the WG 2. The community endorsement of the WG outputs As the UK TRE community's primary focus is to act as a signposting and convening body for the TRE space in the UK and beyond, we have made a conscious effort to separate out the questions of: + - Work that is happening within the community (WG establishment) - Outputs/resources for which there is community consensus and endorsement (community endorsement) @@ -19,37 +22,40 @@ Therefore it is important to note that establishing a WG with the UK TRE communi ### Establishing a Working group 1. Member(s) suggesting a working group fill in the [Working Group Charter](working-group-charter.md). -2. The Charter is reviewed by the [Steering Group]() to ensure it: +2. The Charter is reviewed by the [Community Management Working Group]() to ensure it: - Aligns with [community principles]() - Represents new work being undertaken in the community -3. If the Charter is rejected by the [Steering Group](), feedback is provided to the submitting member(s) on why, and the Working Group returns to step 1. -4. If the Charter is approved by the [Steering Group](), the Charter is made available for community review via an Issue on the [UK TRE GitHub](https://github.com/uk-tre/community-management) for a period of 2 weeks. -5. If, after a period of 2 weeks, there are no unresolved objections to the Charter, the working group is established :tada: -6. If there are unresolved objections, these are reviewed by the [Steering Group](). Any outstanding objections requiring review after this are collated and shared with the Working Group proposers for updating the charter, and the Working Group returns to step 4. +3. If the Charter is rejected by the [Community Management Working Group](), feedback is provided to the submitting member(s) on why, and the Working Group returns to step 1. +4. If the Charter is approved by the [Community Management Working Group](), the Charter is made available for community review, and communicated with the community, via an Issue on the [UK TRE GitHub](https://github.com/uk-tre/community-management) for a period of at least 14 days. +5. After the review period, the [Steering Group]() will either formally reject or approve the WG creation, in line with the [Consensus, Review and Objection Management Process](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SxFnmMKcfsYaO4wjHdiBfGOgPATIsTwRKaLbyjoN1pA/edit?usp=sharing). +6. If the WG is rejected, any outstanding objections requiring review are collated by the [Steering Group]() and shared with the Working Group proposers for updating the charter, and the Working Group returns to step 4. 7. Once a Working Group is established, they are formally recognised on the [UK TRE Community website](https://www.uktre.org/), and the community is notified of its creation. ### Endorsing Working Group outputs -1. When a WG has outputs ready to share with the community, they notify the [Steering Group]() -2. The draft outputs are reviewed by the [Steering Group]() to ensure it: +1. When a WG has outputs ready to share with the community, they notify the [Community Management Working Group]() +2. The draft outputs are reviewed by the [Community Management Working Group]() to ensure it: - Aligns with [community principles]() -3. If approved by the [Steering Group](), the draft outputs are made available for community review via an Issue on the [UK TRE GitHub](https://github.com/uk-tre/community-management) for a period of 4 weeks. -4. At the end of this 4 week period, 3 outcomes are possible: +3. If approved by the [Community Management Working Group](), the draft outputs are made available for community review, and shared with the community, via an Issue on the [UK TRE GitHub](https://github.com/uk-tre/community-management) for a period of at least 28 days. +4. At the end of this period, the outputs will be considered by the [Steering Group]() with 3 possible outcomes: #### Rejection -The community rejects the draft outputs of the WG. + +The [Steering Group]() rejects the draft outputs of the WG. The [Steering Group]() will collate the reasons for rejection and share these with the WG. The WG can decide to either close out the working group, or amend the outputs to resolve any reasons for rejection. #### Approved for distribution -The community approves the outputs for distribution. + +The [Steering Group]() approves the outputs for distribution. The UK TRE community will signpost to the outputs, but will not specifically endorse them. The WG can decide to either close out the working group, or amend the outputs to work towards endorsement. #### Approved and endorsed -The community approves the outputs for distribution, and explicitly endorses them. + +The [Steering Group]() approves the outputs for distribution, and explicitly endorses them. The UK TRE community will signpost to the outputs, and formally endorse them publicly. @@ -61,9 +67,10 @@ No future versions beyond the tagged version are guaranteed to be endorsed by th ### Closing a Working Group 1. The Working group completes the [Working Groups closure form]() confirming its termination. -2. The [Steering Group]() reviews this form, and when approved, lists this working group under `Historical Working Groups`. +2. The [Community Mangement Working Group]() reviews this form, and when approved, lists this working group under `Historical Working Groups`. ### Recommendations + In order to maximise the chance of community endorsement for Working Group outputs, we recommend all working groups: - Share regular updates with the wider community, to ensure co-creation and allow amendments to happen live, rather than at the end - To carefully consider the scope, and target outputs, based on community feedback. If specific suggested outputs face pushback, are there higher level outputs that are more reflective of what the community needs? diff --git a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md index 68889fb..ce80615 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md +++ b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md @@ -9,17 +9,21 @@ This section should summarise in one or two paragraphs the Working group proposa This section should dive into more detail on what the WG aims to address, why it is undertaking this work, and reference any background material/pre-existing work that this proposal builds on. ## Target outputs + This section should contain the target outputs of the WG ## Meeting mechanisms + This section should include details on how, where and when the WG intends to meet ## Communication mechanisms + This section should outline how the WG intends to communicate progress with its members, the UK TRE Community more widely, and any other interested stakeholders. This could include individual people, organisations, community groups and more who may be interested in or impacted by the work of the WG. ## Working Group roles + This section should outline the different roles within the Working Group. Examples include: - **Chairs**: Leaders of the WG - **Contact**: Primary contact for the WG @@ -32,9 +36,8 @@ This section should detail how interested parties can get involved with joining It should also detail expected weekly time commitment for defined roles above ## Agreement -*Please submit this charter with all boxes checked below* By submitting this charter, this working group agrees to: -- [ ] Share any outputs openly under a [CC BY 4.0 licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) +- [ ] Share any outputs openly under an open licence - [ ] Allow participation from any interested parties - [ ] Report on progress at each quarterly community meeting for the duration of the Working Group \ No newline at end of file From 300b7cc57d4f72a707a1d99b0a83c5f6e1c4636c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hari Sood Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:54:55 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 09/12] WG choice on approval and endorsement --- governance/working groups/index.md | 17 +++++++++++++++-- .../working groups/working-group-charter.md | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/governance/working groups/index.md b/governance/working groups/index.md index 9614ad5..f7543b2 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/index.md +++ b/governance/working groups/index.md @@ -1,10 +1,21 @@ # Working groups +## Overview + For the UK TRE Community, a Working Group (WG) is a space for members to come together to work and discuss on a topic. WGs can be set up by any member of the community, and are focused on producing specific, tangible outputs within a given time period. They are modelled off the pre-existing concept of Working Groups found in communities like [DARE UK](https://dareuk.org.uk/dare-uk-launches-dynamic-collaborative-communities-invites-proposals-for-new-groups/), the [Research Data Alliance (RDA)](https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/creating-and-managing-rda-groups/creating-or-joining-rda-working-group.html), the [W3C](https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#GAGeneral), the [IETF](https://www.ietf.org/how/wgs/) and more. +UK TRE Community Working Groups become part of the wider UK TRE Community ecosystem, and benefit from: +- Having access to and engaging a community of TRE experts from across industriues keen to work collaboratively +- Dedicated space on the [UK TRE Community website]() to share updates and outputs +- Promotion through our communication channels, including Slack, mailing list, website and newsletter +- Dedicated presentation opportunities and breakout rooms at our quarterly meetings +- Additional support from the [Community Management Working Group]() where possible + +## Process + There are two distinct processes for those creating a WG to consider: 1. The establishment of the WG @@ -17,8 +28,6 @@ As the UK TRE community's primary focus is to act as a signposting and convening Therefore it is important to note that establishing a WG with the UK TRE community **does not** imply any outputs of the WG are endorsed by the UK TRE Community. - -## Process ### Establishing a Working group 1. Member(s) suggesting a working group fill in the [Working Group Charter](working-group-charter.md). @@ -59,8 +68,12 @@ The [Steering Group]() approves the outputs for distribution, and explicitly end The UK TRE community will signpost to the outputs, and formally endorse them publicly. +The decision to endorse a Working Group output will be more rigorous, and therefore likely take longer, than the decision to approve outputs for distribution. +If Working Groups are happy for their outputs to simply be approved and not endorsed by the community, they should make this clear to the [Steering Group](). + The WG outputs will be tagged with a version referencing this endorsement. If the WG wants to amend/update these outputs, they will have to go through the endorsement process above again. + No future versions beyond the tagged version are guaranteed to be endorsed by the community. diff --git a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md index ce80615..bbb9373 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md +++ b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md @@ -35,6 +35,12 @@ This section should detail how interested parties can get involved with joining It should also detail expected weekly time commitment for defined roles above +## Resource requirements + +This section should include perceived resource requirements to carry out this work. + +Where possible, the Community Management Working Group will support with resources - but these are as of writing very limited! + ## Agreement By submitting this charter, this working group agrees to: From 2ccf497e08d24f0252d5f4640b4dd789bda12d3f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hari Sood Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:56:17 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 10/12] Greater community input --- governance/working groups/index.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/governance/working groups/index.md b/governance/working groups/index.md index f7543b2..3539821 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/index.md +++ b/governance/working groups/index.md @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ Therefore it is important to note that establishing a WG with the UK TRE communi 2. The draft outputs are reviewed by the [Community Management Working Group]() to ensure it: - Aligns with [community principles]() 3. If approved by the [Community Management Working Group](), the draft outputs are made available for community review, and shared with the community, via an Issue on the [UK TRE GitHub](https://github.com/uk-tre/community-management) for a period of at least 28 days. -4. At the end of this period, the outputs will be considered by the [Steering Group]() with 3 possible outcomes: +4. At the end of this period, based on community input the outputs will be considered by the [Steering Group]() with 3 possible outcomes: #### Rejection From 1dec55263a7a956aefd9da41bea977ba3e7d1e48 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hari Sood Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:01:25 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 11/12] Recommendations update --- governance/working groups/index.md | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/governance/working groups/index.md b/governance/working groups/index.md index 3539821..4f57e35 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/index.md +++ b/governance/working groups/index.md @@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ No future versions beyond the tagged version are guaranteed to be endorsed by th ### Recommendations -In order to maximise the chance of community endorsement for Working Group outputs, we recommend all working groups: +Outputs that have transparently engaged the community and reflect community consensus on the issue at hand are the most likely to be endorsed. In order to maximise the chance of community endorsement for Working Group outputs, we recommend all working groups: + - Share regular updates with the wider community, to ensure co-creation and allow amendments to happen live, rather than at the end - To carefully consider the scope, and target outputs, based on community feedback. If specific suggested outputs face pushback, are there higher level outputs that are more reflective of what the community needs? -- To carry out informal reviews of outputs with the community regularly, before requesting formal review. \ No newline at end of file +- To carry out informal reviews of outputs with the community regularly, before requesting formal review. Special attention should be given to those with objecting views on the Working Group's proposed outputs and work \ No newline at end of file From ab049faad0dc461859396bc18bcea97562768be5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hari Sood Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 10:22:20 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 12/12] working group charter update based on DS feedback --- governance/working groups/index.md | 2 +- governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md | 11 +++++++---- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/governance/working groups/index.md b/governance/working groups/index.md index 4f57e35..c93d917 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/index.md +++ b/governance/working groups/index.md @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ Therefore it is important to note that establishing a WG with the UK TRE communi 2. The draft outputs are reviewed by the [Community Management Working Group]() to ensure it: - Aligns with [community principles]() 3. If approved by the [Community Management Working Group](), the draft outputs are made available for community review, and shared with the community, via an Issue on the [UK TRE GitHub](https://github.com/uk-tre/community-management) for a period of at least 28 days. -4. At the end of this period, based on community input the outputs will be considered by the [Steering Group]() with 3 possible outcomes: +4. At the end of this period, based on community input the outputs will be considered by the [Steering Group]() with 3 possible final outcomes. Clear justification for the decision will be provided alongside the final outcome to the Working Group by the [Steering Group](). #### Rejection diff --git a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md index bbb9373..a455d5b 100644 --- a/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md +++ b/governance/working groups/working-group-charter.md @@ -12,9 +12,10 @@ This section should dive into more detail on what the WG aims to address, why it This section should contain the target outputs of the WG -## Meeting mechanisms +## Working, meeting & decision mechanisms -This section should include details on how, where and when the WG intends to meet +This section should include details on how, where and when the WG intends to meet. +It should also include some details about the intended ways of work and how decisions will be made. ## Communication mechanisms @@ -22,6 +23,8 @@ This section should outline how the WG intends to communicate progress with its This could include individual people, organisations, community groups and more who may be interested in or impacted by the work of the WG. +Please contact the Community Management Working Group should you need any assistance in setting this up (for example, creating a dedicated slack channel). + ## Working Group roles This section should outline the different roles within the Working Group. Examples include: @@ -33,7 +36,7 @@ This section should outline the different roles within the Working Group. Exampl This section should detail how interested parties can get involved with joining the WG. -It should also detail expected weekly time commitment for defined roles above +It should also detail expected weekly time commitment for defined roles above. ## Resource requirements @@ -45,5 +48,5 @@ Where possible, the Community Management Working Group will support with resourc By submitting this charter, this working group agrees to: - [ ] Share any outputs openly under an open licence -- [ ] Allow participation from any interested parties +- [ ] Allow and encourage participation from any interested parties - [ ] Report on progress at each quarterly community meeting for the duration of the Working Group \ No newline at end of file