(a) I think its clear that TC members shouldn't post comments on LinkedIn (or other forums) in order to solicit comments on the TC's technical work
- I disagree. The vast majority of industry who will use the emerging standard are not TC members and never will be. A LI forum allows us to understand how industry is thinking on topics that we are discussing.
(b) As a byproduct of forum postings on the future (or current) work of the TC, mis-statements of fact and negative forum messages can propagate, negatively impacting the valuable work of the TC.
- The implication of this statement is that mis-statement of facts and/or negative messages have been posted on LI by TC members, I would like to understand what discussion post is being interpreted in this light. I know of no such message. I was responsible for posting a comment to solicit industry discussion and debate on a specific topic that we as a TC were discussion within our meetings. perfectly valid. No negative content included.
(c) To reiterate, the appropriate channel for soliciting official comments from the public on the work of the TC is through the OASIS eTMF Technical Committee's mail group and issues area.
- Absolutely agree, The LI group is for UNOFFICIAL comment and that is the purpose of the comment posted there…. to encourage discussion and debate by those members of industry who are not able to participate in our TC but who wish to make unofficial comments. It is not always necessary or desired for comments to be formally submitted to the TC’s email group as official comments.
This is very relevant to our work at hand i.e. understanding what industry is thinking on the topics that we as a TC are discussing. Given that we have no major pharmaceutical companies represented on the TC, it is important for industry to have a forum to discuss these topics without feeling they have to submit them formally.
If the TC do not see a need for such a forum, so be it.
From: Zack Schmidt [mailto:zs@sureclinical.net]
Sent: 19 March 2014 16:51
To: Eldin Rammell, Rammell Consulting
Cc: Jennifer Alpert Palchak; etmf@lists.oasis-open.org; Carol Geyer
Subject: Re: [etmf] LinkedIn Groups on OASIS work
Hi Carol,
Thanks for your comments.
I think its clear that TC members shouldn't post comments on LinkedIn (or other forums) in order to solicit comments on the TC's technical work.
As a byproduct of forum postings on the future (or current) work of the TC, mis-statements of fact and negative forum messages can propagate, negatively impacting the valuable work of the TC.
To reiterate, the appropriate channel for soliciting official comments from the public on the work of the TC is through the OASIS eTMF Technical Committee's mail group and issues area.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Eldin Rammell, Rammell Consulting <eldin.rammell@rammell.com> wrote:
With respect, the eTMF Standards LinkedIn Group has amassed over 200 members on the basis that this was a group linked to the OASIS initiative. I think it would be disingenuous to keep this group operational if it is no longer serving that purpose. If the group is to cease as the official external discussion forum, I recommend that it be closed down. If CareLex choose not to do this, it would be reasonable for a message to be posted to all existing subscribers and for the notice to remain plainly visible on the group to state that it has NO CONNECTION with the OASIS Technical Committee. Members of the group can then choose for themselves whether to remain on the group or to opt out. I personally think it would be dishonest not to make such a statement if the purpose/function of a group changes.
I would favour the creation of a new LI group with Carol as Group Manager to provide a forum for non-OASIS members to discuss topics that we as a TC are discussing.
Regards,
Eldin.
From: etmf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:etmf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Alpert Palchak
Sent: 19 March 2014 16:31
To: 'Carol Geyer'; etmf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [etmf] LinkedIn Groups on OASIS work
All,
You may recall we discussed early in the TC, the use of the logo that CareLex had offered to the group, but the TC opted not to use it, which we respect. It is now the property of CareLex. I recommend we remove the link to the eTMF LinkedIn page from the TC page to prevent any concern, even though the link is clearly listed as an External Resource on the TC page.
Best,
Jennifer
From: etmf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:etmf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Carol Geyer
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:12 AM
To: etmf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [etmf] LinkedIn Groups on OASIS work
Some questions have been raised about the appropriate use of LInkedIn Groups. To be sure, there are many LI Groups that promote specific OASIS work. These are not official OASIS resources; generally, they are "owned" by a member and "managed" by one or more members and staff (me).
Here's how OASIS handles LinkedIn Groups:
1) OASIS lists the LI Group on the TC homepage in the "External Resources" section. However, that section is supposed to include the preface: 'Although not produced by the OASIS <name> TC, the following information may offer useful insights into its work.' Somehow, that statement was not included when we created the eTMF TC (my fault). I just now added it, so that's clear.
2) A TC may vote to adopt its own logo (which does not have to incorporate the OASIS logo in any way). Staff will add a TC-approved logo to the TC's homepage. The approved logo should be used on the associated LinkedIn Group as well.
3) A LinkedIn Group associated with a TC must have this text in its Rules (and must abide by this practice):
Please note: The <name> LinkedIn Group is *not* for conducting technical work or providing official comments to OASIS <name> Technical Committee.
Actual work on creating or revising <name> must take place within the OASIS Technical Committee, under the open OASIS TC Process. This process--governing issues such as transparency, contributions, licensing, participation, and disclosure--assures that OASIS Standards are produced in an open, democratic, and accountable method.
Public feedback on OASIS work must be submitted via the "comment" form that is linked from http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/<name>. Feature requests for additions or changes to <name> should be directed through this comment form. All comments are documented and reviewed by the OASIS <name> Technical Committee members and publicly archived.
See the OASIS web site (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/<name>) for details; contact communications@oasis-open.org with any questions or concerns.
4) Group Permissions must be set to allow anyone to join the Group.
Group Members are "Free to post comments only and submit everything else."
Anyone on LI is "Free to post comments, and submit discussions for approval."
Discussions may be moderated, but only as a means to keep out spam. While moderation can result in delayed Discussions (note: *comments* from Members are posted without moderation), I know from experience that LI Groups attract a fair amount of spam. Without moderation, spam will get picked up in digests and feeds and significantly detract from the dialogue.
5) Once posted, Discussions and comments should *never* be deleted. This is essential to preserving the integrity of the open dialogue.
6) An OASIS staff member (me) must be listed as a Group Manager. We also recommend having additional TC members serve as Group Managers to ensure fast moderation. .
I hope this provides clarity. If you have additional questions, please let me know.
Best regards,
Carol
--
Carol Geyer
Senior Director of Communications and Development
OASIS | Advancing open standards for the information society
+1.781.425.5073 x209 (Office) | +1.941.284.0403 (Cell)
http://www.oasis-open.org
Subscribe to bimonthly OASIS newsletter:
http://eepurl.com/ygoFX
Follow OASIS on:
LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/OASISopen
Twitter: http://twitter.com/OASISopen
Facebook: http://facebook.com/oasis.open
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/oasisopen
--
Zack Schmidt, CEO
SureClinical
Healthscience Applications
2865 Sunrise Blvd Suite 218
Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
Support: 916-265-2000
Direct: 916-265-2004
| SureClinical is committed to business processes that protect the environment through the reduction of paper