Transcript Review of 1st year MIG-T work and working methods Michael Lutz, MIG-T meeting, 30 September – 1 October 2014, London, UK www.jrc.ec.europa.eu Serving society Stimulating innovation Supporting.

Review of 1st year MIG-T work and
working methods
Michael Lutz, MIG-T meeting,
30 September – 1 October 2014, London, UK
www.jrc.ec.europa.eu
Serving society
Stimulating innovation
Supporting legislation
Working procedures
• Meetings




Meeting frequency
Proposals of discussion topics
Include more discussions / exchange of good practices?
Are physical meetings good value for money?
• Discussions
 Have technical discussions in the MIG-T (or only in subgroups)?
 Communication channels (e-mail, collaboration space,
meetings, …)
• Work programme
 Process for updating the MIWP
Tools
• Collaboration space
 Content mainly provided by JRC & EEA
 Seems to be actively used by some groups
 Sometimes unclear where information is / should go
– Main project vs. sub-projects
– Issues vs. wiki vs. documents vs. files vs. forum vs. news
 How to notify others?
 How to use issues?
– MIWP tasks & status updates
– Specific issues to be addressed inside the tasks
– Meetings and sub-group ToRs
• Mailing list
• Tele-/web-conference facilities
Active involvement of MIG-T members
• Personal impressions




Much of the activity to date is driven by JRC/EEA
There is an expectation that this is the way it should be
Discussions dominated by few MS
Little feedback on proposals and deliverables
• Joint work only on few activities
 MIWP-5 (validation), MIWP-8 (metadata), MIWP-16
(monitoring)
• How to improve the sharing of discussion topics
and good practices?
• How to encourage wider involvement?
• What should be our level of ambition for MIG-T?
Funding of MIG-related activities
• MIG activities largely funded by




In-kind contributions (staff time) from MS, EC and EEA
ARE3NA ISA action (study/service contracts)
Support to JRC from DG ENV (reimbursement of experts)
JRC/EEA institutional budget (contracts, reimbursement)
• Costs (examples)
Meeting (experts reimbursed) / contract
Costs
MIG/NCP/ISA meeting Copenhagen, Oct 2013 (46)
32k
MIG-T meeting Arona, Apr 2014 (28)
26k
Validation workshop Ispra May 2014 (9)
Small study/service contracts, e.g. SOS, registry
federation, MD/NS validation, RDF/PID experts
Larger ARE3NA studies, e.g. RDF/PIDs, AAA
8k
10-30k
Around 100k
Communication
• Does information about the MIG-T work reach the
“factory floor” (and vice versa)?
• Is it well understood/valued by decision makers?
• How is MIG-T work being communicated within
the MS?
 Communication with NCP and MIG-P
 Communication with technical/thematic experts
• Communication channels




Collaboration space
INSPIRE web site
Social media
Others?
• Communication sub-group