User Engagement How to do it? Where is it for?

1. User EngagementHow to do it?Where is it for? Peter Wittenburg Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Let me add: participating in EUDAT as member of a scientific community my main hat is still science in MPI and infrastructure as bottom-up process as described by Collaborative Data Infrastructure (HLEG)

2. Interviews many interviews during the last 2/3 years (time consuming) RDA/Europe (22+), Radieschen (12), EUDAT, DASISH, MPS goal: find out about needs wrt data infrastructures which mostly includes computational aspects don’t send questionnaires: boring for good people, lack agreed terminology, noisy results, arbitrary interviewees expect to meet experts – expensive, not scaling two questions: of course: are selected interviews representative? is data representative? data = gold of modern science-> data has a high value for scientists ownership/trust are crucial – whom do we trust (DSA disaster)

3. Some Results only those results relevant for todays forum discussion eInfrastructures not yet real point of attention (except network services, web, Google) offers of eInfrastructures are widely unknown growing awareness about ESFRI initiatives – close to research in general people rely on services which are “close to them” (research organization, country) due to trust and convenience issues (culture, legal, language) in some specific areas European/international services are relevant (example: genomics experts know PDB, EMBL, EBI, etc) “cloud” discussion not relevant – need to distinguish “cloud as a technology” from “cloud as another IT-hype to convince politicians” lots of different solutions to organize and manage data

4. Interfacing: • complex • diversity logical layer Interfacing: • can be simple • can be complex data organization split Interfacing: • simple (S3, • OSt) physical layer we had store and organization together (FS naming, paths, etc) first a split of logical layer since file system not sufficient anymore if all logics are separate, can simplify physical structure towards clouds much heterogeneity and all complexity in the logical layer of course clouds don’t solve logical layer

5. expectations and meetings one example of many interactions long AAI discussions with good colleagues from GEANT/eduGain/TERENA had also the focused FIM group by Bob and others had a group working in EUDAT many user meetings again: not to blame anyone of the very good colleagues yet no real progress from community perspective so what is wrong do we have wrong expectations – is AAI in Europe too complex? do we make unrealistic promises – it’s primarily not a technical problem? don’t we understand each other – do we have different goals? we want/need a service – some may want to do research projects? communities are implementing good old User DBs again

6. running project no dynamic adaptation results not usable running project just collection of wishes lack plan for action principle problems researchers want useful services but not interested in lengthy discussions researchers will take interesting solutions or build them infrastructure building & giving service requires altruistic people – do we have them in Europe? Can we only rely on services for money? infrastructure and tool building requires time to become mature and accepted – there is a time without reliable success indicators different models of user engagement user advisory boards – often alibi function user forums – interesting but difficult to turn into action conferences – often platforms to present own work active working groups – very promising but does not scale DataOne CLARIN EUDAT ...

7. questions to this forum what is the aim of the forum – supporting, blocking, commenting, recommending, claqueuring, etc.? how to make sure we get the people we are looking for? is it a neutral place or is there a hidden agenda? whom do we trust – who is in the driving seat (researchers, IT folks, etc.)? how do we organize the forum – monolithically? do we understand that there is no golden way of user engagement – partly success depends on trusted persons? (famous Henry Thompson and XML) same issues being addressed by RDA (and others such as IETF, W3C, etc.)

8. no free lunch ... this forum is part of a comprehensive strategy of CERN IT EIROforum docs in the center – lot’s of good stuff in the vision statement no references to Riding the Wave, RDA concept of “ centers of excellence”, but why not CDI incl. communities DataNet kicked out IT departments from leading roles EIROforum puts CERN IT into the center which is wrong monolithic approach at start – CERN + 1 center in H in EUDAT we see that communities are emancipated & integrated don’t want and need a big brother – need true CDI it’s the interaction process that brings us ahead not considering importance of trust is naive – data will stay close the way it is put EIROforum docs falls behind state need to integrate RO, national and community centers or is it about offering a technology and just one other center? however, having several trusted providers is good

9. Thanks.

10. some ideas trust establishment is crucial no monolithic forum – let’s reflect diversity have a balance between stakeholders and don’t ask people from IT departments to drive this (is this realistic since people mostly go where there is a direct gain?) separate bottom-up opinions from political influences analyze current mechanisms for user engagement which are in place one last comment to my excellent CERN colleagues: the EIROforum papers look like a ready-made proposal with CERN IT department in the center is this forum just a bunch of claqueurs that are needed again with CERN IT department in the center? EUDAT is based on CDI – not easy with communities in the driving seat