Community Comments on RiC-CM 0.2

[Daniel Pitti]

The EGAD is pleased to release comments on RiC-CM 0.2 that led to the development of RiC-CM 1.0.

The comments with EGAD annotations are available in two locations:

EGAD Google Drive

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1poJk2SHoIdOsTUMh_YqyFE-dweHEi4tN/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106966929531843205544&rtpof=true&sd=true

EGAD GitHub

https://github.com/ICA-EGAD/RiC-CM/blob/master/feedback/Comments_on_RiC-CM_0.2_publicVersion.xlsx
 

Following the release of RiC-CM 0.2 in July 2021, the EGAD requested community input. In the responses to the request, we identified 163 specific comments, many from professional groups and some from individuals. The EGAD organized the comments into a spreadsheet and then carefully considered each over the course of many months of bi-weekly meetings.

The EGAD would like to thank the community for the comments. They were very helpful in producing RiC-CM 1.0. A number of the observations and comments were quite insightful, leading to lengthy discussions and revisions. Some suggested revisions were in conflict, with one requesting more complexity in a certain area, and another less complexity in the same area. The members of EGAD tried their best to balance competing suggestions.

Again, thank you for the comments.

Daniel Pitti
Chair, ICA EGAD

[Dan Michelson]

Hi Daniel,

I appreciate the move towards transparency, but have a couple questions:

• Can you remind me whether there was a previous round of comments and, if so, whether those comments and responses are available?
  
• You state there were 163 specific comments, but it looks like that is the sum of all the individual comments made across the responses from 13 commenters.  Are you able to share the number of separate responses you received?
  

All the best,

Dan Michelson

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Records_in_Contexts_users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Records_in_Context...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/38b0ede5-53bd-48db-8619-914df76ba8acn%40googlegroups.com.

--

Dan Michelson

Collections Archivist

Smith College Special Collections

[Daniel Pitti]

Dear Dan,

Thank you for your interest and questions.

I will answer the second first and the first second, as the answer to the first question is longer and I do not want the answer to the second to get lost.

"You state there were 163 specific comments, but it looks like that is the sum of all the individual comments made across the responses from 13 commenters.  Are you able to share the number of separate responses you received?"

I am not sure I fully understand what you are after. There were 13 contributors. Each of the 13 contributors submitted the whole of their comments using one unique table based on a Word template that had been provided on the ICA website. When compiling the spreadsheet that we have made available, the comments received were preserved as submitted in columns E and F, with the contributor in column B. We organized and grouped comments that were similar or seemed intellectually related, and so not all comments from the same contributor are grouped together. If you are interested in how many distinct comments each contributor submitted, this can be determined by sorting the spreadsheet by the contributor column and counting the rows associated with each. But perhaps neither interpretation is correct. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding the question.

"Can you remind me whether there was a previous round of comments and, if so, whether those comments and responses are available?"

After releasing RiC-CM 0.1, the EGAD asked the community for feedback. The comment period was from September 2016 to the end of January 2017. 62 individuals, groups, and institutions representing 19 countries and 2 international organizations responded. In analyzing the responses, we identified over 1000 distinct comments. When compiled, it was more than 260 pages (if we were to print it, which we did not!).

Though pleased with the interest and response, the members of EGAD, including in particular the chair, were overwhelmed by the volume. We were not sure exactly how to process the quantity of feedback, making sure to respect the contributions and direct them to meaningful development of RiC.

Fortunately, Kat Timms, then a member of EGAD, volunteered to analyze the comments, a process that took many months. In the end, she broadly categorized comments by type, and then within some types, into more focused groupings. The end result was over 50 pages. Kat's work necessarily involved a lot of analyses and interpretation.  

Kat presented on the feedback and how she processed it in Montréal in August 2017, and again in Rome in October 2017. We are evaluating the two presentations to ensure we have identified the most detailed version. We will presently make the presentation available after we have asked Kat for permission.

We are reviewing the 50 plus pages of the consolidated and organized comments, and after the review we will make it available. The 260 plus pages of the raw data is both prohibitively large to distribute, and it includes personal identifying information for which we did not request permission to make public.

It was our intention to make public both the presentation and the consolidated feedback. Kat was the person in EGAD that was promoting making the documents public, but she unfortunately stepped down from EGAD before the documents were made public. As chair, I take full responsibility for not making sure this happened. I was focused on producing RiC-CM 0.2 and directed our limited resources to this objective.

Thus, let us complete this long overdue obligation to the community.

One last thought. In reviewing Kat's presentation, a theme is present there that continues to appear to this day: revealing the process behind the formation of the EGAD, how the members were initially chosen, and how membership has been maintained over time, from 2012 until the present. The methods have changed some over time, as ICA, like comparable organizations, is endeavoring to respond to changing community expectations with respect to openness and broad global representation balanced with forming functional, productive groups. When I can find a moment to refresh my memory, I will try to describe the processes behind the initial formation of the EGAD and how its population has been maintained over time.

Daniel Pitti
Chair, ICA EGAD

[Dan Michelson]

Hi Daniel,

Thank you for your response.

Your answer to my second question addressed the first one, I knew that TS-DACS had submitted two separate responses, but the first one would have been part of the 0.1 feedback.

To be quite honest, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by highlighting the responses to 0.2 without mentioning the responses to 0.1.  My first reaction to there being 13 respondents to 0.2 was that it was an alarmingly low number for any major standard, let alone a foundational international one.  That's a tiny segment of the international archival community!  The fact that there were 62 respondents to 0.1 is more encouraging.

I think the transparency aspect comes down to philosophical differences on how standards groups should operate and who "owns" the work products and comments.  I simply don't see the obstacles you point to as being problems.  Given that the material in question is seven years old, it's probably academic at this point.

All the best,

Dan Michelson

P.S.  Quick caveat, while I'm a member of the Society of American Archivists Standards Committee (and the incoming co-chair), none of the above is the position of the Committee, just my own thoughts as an archivist interested in the success of a groundbreaking new international standard.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/26c1572a-f6c2-4327-9cac-81d7a2c8834cn%40googlegroups.com.