Update & review Community's Principles and Manifesto

[Davsarper]

Detail

The community has a clear shared goal of collaborating openly in the TRE space, but this requires furhter detail and agreement. Based on the existing Newcastle commitment we need to, as a community, agree what we are working for

Document open for review here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hI1rfjA6XSI7fy_UF8GP4YKYM6ITW2_BkAIXujj8fxs/edit

Actions

• Ensure existing principles and goals (Newcastle and funding proposal) are available and known
• Create spaces for their discussion
• Put together a proposal
• Obtain consensus

Who can help

@harisood first, then chairs/Community WG

Depends on

#18

[harisood]

Should this be part of just the keynote, or also a breakout discussion?

[manics]

I think if we're going for a breakout discussion we should have something to propose with the aim of achieving something concrete by the end of the session rather than having an open-ended discussion. Otherwise we could save it for a future discussion, perhaps a seperate dedicated 2(?)-hour meeting just for anyone interested, especially if we end up with more community topic proposals?

[harisood]

This should come after #18 is completed so we have a transparent method for changes/proposals

[Davsarper]

Starting doc for principles here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hI1rfjA6XSI7fy_UF8GP4YKYM6ITW2_BkAIXujj8fxs/edit

[Davsarper]

Doc open for review, it is quite simple and mostly rephrasing the commitments of the Newcastle Commitment. I thought a specific mention of the NC as the foundation would be best, but then leave the NC untouched for reference.

What this doc now needs is for us to go over the other docs and see if they require any other principles in place, also general wording of course.

• Revise other documents for conflicting or missing principles
• Order principles
• Synthesize principles if we detect duplicity
• Add principles
• Wording
• Make sure it is clear on the community being open to everyone, regardless of whether or not they apply openness outside of the community, but everything the community does needs to be open

[JimMadge]

I've added my comments to the google doc as "Anonymous" due to lack of a google account. Not sure this is the best way to review things for transparency or posterity.

Some of the changes I think feel like a step back. The wording feels like we aren't actually very confident about openness and want to have our cake and eat it by putting in some exceptions.

The shorter document, more focused on principles is useful. I think the detail in the Newcastle commitment about why an open approach is needed, and its benefits is still important to include though. Otherwise, it isn't really clear why these are the principles (especially when adding phrases like "wherever possible").

[Davsarper]

Thanks Jim, very useful. I/we can add more on the WHY, it felt like a short direct document would be useful especially when keeping the og Commitment and directing to it for the WHY. But sure can summarise.

Also we can be more direct and take out exceptions in openness if it's clear that it applies to what the community does, I was not sure on language. The first principle specially felt to me as it could be understood as applying beyond, and that to be a member you need to share openly with the community your policies from work.

I will also add response to google doc. The reason for using google doc is that other members where struggling to follow reviews directly on GH, the idea is to create first version on g doc then take to GH as v1 and keep future edits here. Will also try to reflect conversations in the issues so they are kept.

[Davsarper]

I have included more reasoning as to the WHY of openness and collaboration, I left the principles first and the explanation later so they remain more prominent. @JimMadge do you think it is better now?

I would be interested in hearing from @harisood and @manics in particular whether or not the current phrasing balances the focus on openness with welcoming everyone to be part even when they do not work openly in their daily jobs

[JimMadge]

Make sure it is clear on the community being open to everyone, regardless of whether or not they apply openness outside of the community, but everything the community does needs to be open

To be clear, I'm against any change along those lines.

I don't think there is any benefit. People have suggested it may be off putting before. However, if someone reacts so strongly to the concept of working openly and open outputs, I can't see them making worthwhile contributions to the community. I'm also completely unconvinced that the current wording suggests you are excluded if any of your personal or professional work is not open; I don't think it would be reasonable to read that from the text.

Instead, adding words to that effect have a negative impact. It suggests we are backtracking on openness and giving ourselves the convenience to hold or break the principles when we like. I don't believe we can say that these are our principles if we go through such pain to explain exceptions.

The first principle specially felt to me as it could be understood as applying beyond, and that to be a member you need to share openly with the community your policies from work.

On that one specifically. The text is

To openly share the policies and processes we use to work safely with sensitive data, working together to more closely align these under a common framework.

I don't see how we can work together on aligning policies/processes while keeping them secret. In the same way, we can't build common technical frameworks without an understanding of how our TREs work. So again, I think it is a case where if this is unacceptable to you, you will find it very difficult to be an active member of the community.

[manics]

I've left some comments on the Google doc 😄.

A general thought is that the Newcastle declaration was written by technologists. We've since grown to encompass many more people, most notably with a sigificant number of IG and policy professionals. I think some of the details on how to implement openess are now too technical, and would be better placed in a separate doc.

[KirstieJane]

Just a vote to agree with all of @JimMadge's points. I think the lack of confidence that comes with backtracking on a foundational document - particularly with respect to openness - will be a very disappointing direction for the UK TRE community.

[JimMadge]

A general thought is that the Newcastle declaration was written by technologists. We've since grown to encompass many more people, most notably with a sigificant number of IG and policy professionals. I think some of the details on how to implement openess are now too technical, and would be better placed in a separate doc.

Definitely true that it was written by a group of RSEs and people in very similar roles; we were originally the RSE TRE community.

I'm not certain which parts you think are too technical. If that's true, it would be worth improving. I don't see removing references to openness or adding exceptions achieves that. In general, I don't see openness as a technical thing. FOSS licenses are often most appropriate for software (with references to source code and binary distribution) but there are equivalents for informative or creative works (CC being my favourite).

[Davsarper]

I think we have a good proposal now (although I am sure it can be improved) that emphasizes openness, collaboration and reproducibility. While reinforcing the NC as it foundational manifesto it puts front and centre its principles, in an encompassing/clear way to all stakeholders.
And which I hope integrates all comments and suggestions

[jamespjh]

To note that as the original convener of the session that created the manifesto, I support @JimMadge and @KirstieJane here.

On questions of technical content - it is my view that engineers have a leading role to play, not just as technicians but as philosophers of collaboration. The Pull Request, the only mechanism by which projects scale successfully to thousands, was invented by developers for developers, but has since revolutionised many other fields. The same is true of FOSS leading to the wider Open movement and Creative Commons / Wiki, and the whole principle of the Agile Manifesto.

This is something we should be proud of. We are not, and never should be, Code Monkeys.

[Davsarper]

Please do suggest any changes on the document where you think it fails to uphold openness, collaboration or anything else