Notes from day 3 group 3 discussions re Standards Working Group and standards-making process

[gregtucker]

Group 3

What does/doesn't work:

• have a clear charter of group's responsibilities

• empower group to speak on behalf of others, they really do represent perspectives

• make sure their recommendations are heard respectfully and acknowledged, whether incorporated or not---avoid having people work hard and then be ignored---clear path from charge to how they work to how their info is used; clear understanding of process

• Make sure everyone has the same goals, as opposed to 2-3 subcommunities with different goals

• Make sure words are being used in the same way

• Ex: citizen science can fail when people don't see where their input/work is going

• Size: there's actual literature on optimal size, maybe 8-10, not 20-25, unless you have particular procedures

• Organizations with best practices on remote meeting, where they're bigger than trad wg size but with procedures that can work (NSF has done up to 300)

• Sometimes there's too much overhead, so be careful to avoid "too much to handle"

• Clear deadlines and deliverables. Responsibility of moderator. Maybe rotate the position.

• Extremes: disorganized with no responsibility; or single person dictates.

• Bottom-up works best when there's training of working group leaders in how to facilitate. "Global xx Ecological Observatory Network"---core leadership group; people are trained ahead of time (hear all voices, be respectful)

• Successful strategy: have a schedule of meetings; have defined goals; invite people where needed to meet particular goals (e.g., an expert on that goal); each meeting can have a different lead (can rotate leadership depending on goals, share the burden)

• OMF could be different in these ways: compromise between efficiency and diversity (some very active, some rarely active). E.g., what was done in May is somewhat biased and narrow in that it doesn't address concerns of many. Having a WG of only 8-10 means omitting important stuff. Process of decision making needs to be clearly written and transparent and accessible to the entire group, not just those in the core.

• Allow possibility of asynchronous work.

• ++ idea of less traditional approach. Ecological Forecasting Initiative has managed groups of 125.

• New social technologies around electronic tools (e.g., automated transcripts)---we are now positioned better around larger groups.

• Not either-or; can have a large meeting synthesized by a smaller group.

• Sharable documents widely accessible.

• Modeling cultures can be completely different between fields; unintentional structural bias arises and needs to be balanced.

• Put boundaries on the problem: don't try to cover everything, but have standards for what they're designed to do.

• Start with the goals, which will then drive what you do and do not cover. Might be many things we do NOT want to standardize / regulate with OMF. Importance of MINIMAL standards.

• "World Earth Modeling" (we're not doing quantum physics modeling)

• Are there similarly broad modeling organizations in other fields, e.g., chemistry? O.R.? Discrete Event Simulation? Different dynamics emerge when business gets involve.

• Can look at, e.g., ISO, etc.

• Relationships and social interactions keep volunteers active: importance of personal ties. Building a community, and people want to belong to that community. Also reputation: your name is attached to a standard (avoid embarrassment)

• Include early-career people to draw them into the community. Value of having name on publications emerging from groups. OMF-certified badge is a kind of reward too.

• Idea of an ECR track in OMF: networks, events, etc. Provide something more than just "attendance".