The EOSC Association conducted a survey to gather feedback on their Multi-Annual Roadmap (MAR) and received 45 completed responses with 191 partial responses. The main themes from the 534 comments included needing more clarity on terminology, emphasizing national investment roles, and greater focus on business models and funding research software engineers. Minor comments requested removing organization examples, clarifying the voluntary nature of EOSC, and reconsidering visual identity. The analysis will be shared with the board and task forces to inform revisions to the MAR text for republication in mid-May.

1. EOSC Association | www.eosc.eu
EOSC Association
TF Co-Chairs / Formal Meeting
24 April 2022
EOSC-A Board and Team

2. MAR consultation
• Survey was open for 3 weeks
• Promoted via EOSC Association members, ESFRI, Science Europe etc
• In total, 45 completed the survey. 191 started but didn’t finish.
• Data analysis now completed. It took a while…
• 534 comments to process!
https://eosc.eu/multi-annual-roadmap-mar-consultation
2

3. Main themes raised
• Need to say more on added value / value proposition
• Terminology confusing (Core, Exchange, onboarding, federation, resources…)
• Extend text on multilingualism
• Place more emphasis on national investment / MS role
• Several concerns raised about how this will all be funded
• Business models seen as priority needing much greater emphasis. Agree!
• Questions about the role of RSE/data steward and how we fund them
• Minor points to check on AAI, PIDs, EIF etc
• Plan to raise these with the appropriate Task Force. Messages will come soon!
3

4. General (minor) comments
• Asked to remove examples as naming orgs is contentious – agree, but also means all
those who gave examples to list won’t be included
• Concern about EOSC being compulsory – will clarify but also explain new grant
conditions under Horizon Europe
• Felt we were over-ambitious at times – accept, but no change. Keep stretch targets
• Suggestion to prioritise outcomes and structure according to timeline etc – agree
and are considering what to do as it’s a major restructure. Not sure it is feasible…
• EOSC visual identity confusing – currently deciding what to do
• Publications felt to be underestimated – understand point but disagree, same
justification as previous SRIA consultation feedback
4

5. Next steps
• Board to review analysis and agree proposals for change
• Text in MAR to be amended collectively
• Work to be proofread and published – hopefully by mid May
Analysis took longer than anticipated so no longer on track to
have updated version by end April
5

6. What will be shared and how?
To be agreed, but here are my personal thoughts…
• Write a blog summarizing consultation feedback and how it was processed
• Release the full spreadsheet of comments, detailing how we responded /
acted on them, alongside the new version of the MAR
• Share files with Task Forces 1-2 weeks in advance of publishing so they have
privileged initial access. This is not an invitation to make changes though as
we have no time to make them!
6

7. EOSC Association | www.eosc.eu
Discussion