This page to be located at: https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/group-process-procedures.html
Group Process & Procedures
This webpage provides an overview for Working Groups (see “Setting up a Working Group” <insert
link>), Interest Groups (see “Setting up an Interest Group” <insert link>), Birds of a Feather (BoFs),
(see “Setting up a BoF” <insert link>) Working Group Processes, Interest Group Processes, Charters,
and Case Statements. Please note that the documents herein are a work in progress. We want
people to work through these guidelines and to provide constructive feedback on their
usefulness. Please contact us with your feedback.
Introduction
The Research Data Alliance accomplishes its mission primarily through two important mechanisms:
(1) Working Groups; and (2) Interest Groups. A third mechanism are short-term (3) BoFs held at
plenaries, which can lead to new Interest or Working Groups. Table 1 illustrates these three types of
groups.
Any RDA member may initiate or join an RDA Working Group, Interest Group, or BoF. To become a
member of the RDA, individuals should register with the RDA online community, thereby affirming
their support for the RDA Guiding Principles.
RDA works to implement functional infrastructure through Working Groups. Working Groups are
comprised of experts from the international community that are engaged in creating deliverables
that will directly enable data sharing, exchange, or interoperability. Working Groups conduct shortlived, 12-18 month efforts that implement specific tools, code, best practices, standards, etc. at
multiple institutions. For more detail on the expected WG outcomes, see Working Group Goals and
Outcomes.
Working Groups undergo a review process before they are endorsed by RDA. RDA endorsement is
dependent upon the Working Group committing to produce deliverables within an 18-month time
frame that will be implemented and adopted by one or more specific communities. Working Group
deliverables include, but are not limited to, technical specifications and implementation practices,
conceptual models or frameworks, implemented policies, and other documents and practices that
improve data exchange.
These targeted, concrete efforts are the focus of RDA, but often the community needs to work
together for a while to define these specific implementable activities. RDA has developed a process
that enables groups of researchers and data scientists to define common issues and interests
through longer-term Interest Groups.
Interest Groups are comprised of experts from the community that are committed to directly or
indirectly enabling data sharing, exchange, or interoperability. Interest groups develop brief charters
that also undergo a review process before the group is endorsed by RDA. RDA endorsement is
dependent upon the Interest Group serving as a platform for communication and coordination
among individuals, outside and within RDA, with shared interests. They produce important
deliverables such as surveys, recommendations, reports, and Working Group case statements.
Interest groups must have international participation and a demonstrated community. They should
not be for promoting specific projects or technologies. Interest Groups remain in operation as long
as they remain active, subject to periodic evaluation of their activity and its relevance to RDA
aims. If an interest group has been inactive for six months, it may be disbanded by Council.
Interest Groups
Working Groups
BoFs
All RDA members can join
All RDA members can join
All RDA members can join
Long-term
12-18 months
Short-term around a
Plenary
Outcomes
Possibly case statements
for new WGs,
coordination,
communication
Concrete deliverables “Running code”, tools,
standards, etc.
Convert to IG, convert to
WG, or retire BoF
RDA liaisons
1 Tab member,
1 Secretariat member
1-2 TAB members,
1 Secretariat member
1 Secretariat member
Review
process
Community review (4+
weeks), then review by
TAB (2 weeks) and
Council (2 weeks)
Community review (4+
None
weeks), then review by
TAB (4 weeks) and Council
(2 weeks)
Membership
Duration
Table 1: Differences between IGs, WGs, and BoFs
BoFs are one time meetings at plenaries. The aim of a BoF session is to find other RDA members
interested in the topic and explore whether there is interest in establishing an Interest or Working
Group on the topic.
Setting up a BoF
Any member or members of RDA can propose a BoF session at the next plenary. The process to
request and conduct a BoF is as follows:
1. The BoF chair creates a new group of type BoF via the “Initiate new Group” option in the
“Working and Interest Groups” menu, including a brief description of the BoF. <How do TAB
/ Secretariat get notified???>
2. The RDA Secretariat will allocate a Secretariat Liaison to the BoF and inform the BoF chairs.
3. After the deadline for proposing breakout sessions at the plenary is past, the TAB will
attempt to include the BoF in the schedule for the next plenary.
4. TAB will contact the BoF chair(s) and inform them of the outcome. (The main reason why a
BoF may not be accepted would be if all the available breakout slots had been requested for
WGs and IGs.)
5. If the BoF session can be accommodated in the schedule, the BoF will be listed in the plenary
program. It is recommended that the BoF chair(s) advertise the BoF and contact potential
participants.
6. The BoF session is then held at the next plenary.
At or shortly after the BoF session at the plenary, the BoF participants should decide if they want
the BoF to be a one-off event, or if they want to continue their discussions by converting the BoF
into an Interest or Working Group, in which case the BoF participants need to develop a charter
or case statement. If the BoF participants decide not to convert the BoF, the BoF chairs should
notify the Secretariat so that the BoF’s Organic Group can be retired.
Setting up an Interest Group
Interest Groups are long-term initiatives within the RDA. With respect to function and outcomes,
Interest Groups may do one or more of the following:
1) serve as a platform that leads to the formation of one or more Working Groups. An existing
Interest Group may refine their ideas into implementable actions by creating focused Case
Statements to create one or more Working Groups. The process of establishing a Working Group is
described in the “Setting up a Working Group” section below.
2) support communication and coordination among a cluster of related Working Groups/Interest
Groups that may be grouped by theme (e.g., research domain, data publishing, data life cycle
component, etc.)
3) enable better communication and coordination across different Working Groups/Interest Groups
(e.g, all domain-specific groups, all education groups, between technically oriented and domainspecific groups, etc.)
4)
serve to communicate and coordinate with a specific community outside RDA, fostering
synergies, bringing new groups/members to RDA and conversely bringing the WGs activities to the
attention of external parties.
Interest Groups undergo a formal review (see Figure 1) <insert link> before they are recognized and
endorsed by RDA. The process for initiating an RDA Interest Group is as follows:
1. The prospective Interest Group (IG) puts together a short (up to 200 words) charter
describing their activities and two or three chairs. One of the IG members (typically a chair)
creates a new Interest Group via the “Initiate new group” button in the “Working and
Interest Groups” menu and adds the charter to this group. The Secretariat designates a
liaison to work with the proposed IG, and will contact the IG chairs.
2. The Secretariat notifies the TAB, Council, and the broader community that the document has
been posted and is now ready for community review. At the start of the community review
phase, the TAB will designate a TAB member to work with the candidate group to help guide
the review process. The community will be given at least four weeks to review and comment
on the document.
3. If there have been significant comments, the IG is expected to post a revised Charter, based
on the comments made during community review.
4. TAB reviews the IG charter.
5. Council reviews the IG charter in consultation with TAB, and makes one of four possible
decisions:

Recognized and endorsed as is: Strong Charter. Group is recognized as an RDA IG and should
commence its work.

Recognized and endorsed subject to specific revisions: Worthwhile idea, changes need to be
made to strengthen the Charter and meet approval criteria. After the approach has been
modified, the group will be recognized by RDA and commence its work.

Encouraged but not presently endorsed: Good idea but needs refinement. The group needs
to mature its concept and refine its Charter for approval. Council and/or TAB will provide
specific feedback and clarification on what is needed.

Not endorsed: The idea is not a good fit for the RDA or does not meet other criteria for
approval. Council will provide specific feedback and clarification.
The group’s revision contact, a member of TAB, Council, or the Secretariat, will notify the IG
of the review outcomes and inform the group who will be working with them on any
remaining issues.
6.
Once the document has been revised, the group chair should post it in its Discussion group.
Council and TAB will then review the document again.
7.
If Council perceives reasonable community consistence and clear needs, deliverables, and
beneficiaries, they formally recognize the group.
Once the IG is recognised, the Secretariat will help the IG establish working, communication, and
recording processes. Joint activities with RDA affiliates are encouraged.
Figure 1: IG Charter Review Process.
Setting up a Working Group
Working Groups (WGs) require more commitment than Interest Groups. Working Groups develop
Case Statements that are then reviewed by the RDA Community, TAB, and Council. More
information on the required components and review criteria relevant to a Case Statement can be
found on the Case Statement page.
Candidate WGs should contact enquiries [at] rd-alliance.org about their intent to develop an RDA
Working Group Case Statement. A Secretariat liaison will be assigned to the candidate WG as a
resource to assist them throughout the life of the WG.
The process for setting up an RDA Working group is as follows (see also Figure 2 <insert link>):
1. The WG develops their Case Statement describing the Working Group’s beneficiaries, goals,
outcomes, and operational approach. The WG chair(s) creates a new Case Statement, if
there is already an RDA Organic Group for the group, or creates a new Working Group via
the “Initiate new group” button in the “Working and Interest Groups” menu, and adds the
Case Statement to this group.
2. The Secretariat notifies the TAB, Council, and the broader community that the document has
been posted and is now ready for community review. The community will be given at least
four weeks to review and comment on the document. TAB will also designate one or two
TAB members to work with the candidate group to help guide the review process and, in
particular for Working Groups, advise on technical considerations, representation, and
alignment with the RDA Technical Roadmap
3. If there have been significant comments, the WG is expected to post a revised Case
Statement, based on the comments made during community review.
4. TAB reviews the Case Statement. This is expected to take 2-4 weeks.
5. After the TAB review, Council will review the Case Statement. This is expected to take about
4 weeks. Council will make one of four possible decisions about a document:
5.
Recognized and endorsed as is: Strong Case Statement. Group is recognized as RDA WG and
should commence its work.
6.
Recognized and endorsed subject to specific revisions: Worthwhile idea, changes need to be
made to strengthen the Case Statement and meet approval criteria. After the approach has
been modified, the group will be recognized by RDA and commence its work.
7.
Encouraged but not presently endorsed: Good idea but needs refinement. The group needs
to mature its concept and refine its Case Statement for approval. Council and/or TAB will
provide specific feedback and clarification on what is needed.
8.
Not endorsed: The idea is not a good fit for the RDA or does not meet other criteria for
approval. Council will provide specific feedback and clarification. Council may feel that the
group may be more appropriate as discussion-oriented Interest Groups, from which specific
outcome-oriented Working Group ideas and Case Statement submissions may arise later.
6. After the Council review, a designated member of either TAB or Council, or the Secretariat
will get back to the WG chairs with any comments or revisions, and information on who will
work with the group on those. The chairs then post a revised version of the Case Statement
on the case statement page.
7. TAB and/or Council will review the Case Statement again. If Council perceives reasonable
community consistence and clear needs, deliverables, and beneficiaries, they formally
recognize the group.
The outcomes of recognized Working Groups are strongly promoted by Council, the TAB, the
Secretariat, and the RDA Membership at large. We work hard to encourage research agencies,
industry, and academia to adopt the products of RDA Working Groups.
Figure 2: WG Case Statement Review Process.