Hi everybody
Following on from Mark's message below I wanted to outline plans for the DUWG in the short term.
Hopefully you've seen the Q1 Board minutes that include the following:
"Consider establishing more permanent working groups on all three core components of IATI: data use, data quality and technical core, both with a view to increasing engagement of the IATI community/communities and for the provision of advice to the Board. For that purpose the Board proposed to develop a thought piece, including the first elements of a TORs for establishing such “institutionalized” Working Groups The experience of the Data use Working Group, including the development of TORs, can inform the next steps in this work."
With this action point from the Board, the Secretariat suggestion is to place the DUWG schedule of meetings on a short hold while we prepare a draft proposal for the new Board as it gets to work in May.
In the meantime the Secretariat will continue with ongoing projects (such as CSO training) and circle back in this space with a new date for DI to present and seek feedback and share plans on the new Datastore Search tool.
The next two DUWG meetings (April 5 and April 19) are therefore cancelled, but please watch this space for new dates, and continue to share your suggestions on data use here.
Thanks, Annelise
Thanks Annelise Parr - IATI Secretariat
> Consider establishing more permanent working groups on all three core components of IATI: data use, data quality and technical core
Whilst I do support investigating these, I'm also minded that a main driver to setting up Working Groups was for the initiative to solicit and gather *specific* input from community stakeholders. For example, a Working Group on the Results function of the IATI standard would be very welcome (and many other aspects of the standard, too, for example). In doing that, we might want to bring together different stakeholders to a Geography Working Group (for example).
Additionally, such groups can have very clear briefs, timelines and set deliverables, if needed. I think this then helps people understand their own role on a Working Group, as opposed to committing to something that might be open ended (or never ending!)
Right now, we severely lack *any* form of rigorous Working Group, which is a real shame, given that this was agreed (as my last act as the TAG Chair!) in Brussels in September 2019. Hence, it's very tempting to consider having permanent Working Groups as a next step, but I'd be concerned that we then enter too rigid a setup, meaning that the institutionalisation of such groups narrows opportunities for a diverse set of inputs and insights.
It's a fine balance - but I wanted to share that it's important to consider that Working Groups could be flexible, specific and time-bound, too. A great example of this is in the 360Giving data initiative, where a recent Geography Working Group have just completed their work, leading to wider community consultation: https://www.threesixtygiving.org/2022/03/30/where-do-grants-go-working-…
Thanks
Please log in or sign up to comment.