I am finished with Technical Reports parts A and B as far as Edgeryders is concerned. As I understand it, you still need from me:
Section 1.1 (consortium-wide) of Technical Report Part A.
Update the Budget Tracker and Timesheet with the last round of payments.
Ethics stuff.
What I need to know:
Deadline for 2?
How is 3 going to work? As you know, I have already done the work on both data protection and ethics, but I get confused in the different WP7 deliverables. For example D7.5 and D7.1 seem the same thing. The best, for me, would be to do ONE deliverable that summarizes both data protection and ethics. Additionally: I assume these WP7 things are consortium-wide: submitted by UBx with information provided by us. If so, maybe the easiest is that you give us a template, and we can fill in the relevant information.
The deadline was on the 15th of December for final internal review. I’ll be working until Dec, 22nd, and back from Jan, 5th. If you can have everything ready by the 22nd, it’s for the best, if not by the beginning of January.
How is 3 going to work? As you know, I have already done the work on both data protection and ethics, but I get confused in the different WP7 deliverables. For example D7.5 and D7.1 seem the same thing. The best, for me, would be to do ONE deliverable that summarizes both data protection and ethics. Additionally: I assume these WP7 things are consortium-wide: submitted by UBx with information provided by us. If so, maybe the easiest is that you give us a template, and we can fill in the relevant information.
We already have written the deliverables for ethics WP (WP7) using some of Marco’s previous recommendations. I am not in favour of rewriting the whole WP again, because we have lost too much time on that topic since September. I still need a final green light for Marco to review them before Dec 22nd.
Beyond that date, we will probably submit them as they are now, because delaying these again may not sound acceptable for the EC.
Several ethics-related measures are still to be taken by the whole consortium, so that we comply with the ethics requirements listed in Annex 1 GA, in our previous engagements in Marco’s consent funnel deliverable and the European Directive for Data Protection (i.e. privacy info page on opencare.cc, partners getting in touch with National authorities for data protection, offline consent funnel, data management plan updated by everyone - see Consortium meeting minutes and to-do list)
@LuceChiodelliUB , I cannot reconcile the comment above with what I remember from the Milano meeting.
There, you told us that it was important to let the Commission know that we were proactively taking steps to secure the ethics and data protection profile of opencare. In the case of Edgeryders, these steps were discussed mostly here, anyway outside of preparing deliverables for WP7. There are three things that we would like to be in WP7 deliverables:
[Data protection] It is unclear whether Edgeryders, as a collective blog, has any obligations towards the Information Commisioner's Office, the UK data protection regulator. To be on the safe side, we took advantage of a provision in the Data Protection Act that allows us to register with the ICO on a voluntary basis, thereby putting ourselves in its line of sight.
[Data protection] We used the ICO's self-assessment tool to gauge our compliance. It seems we are doing reasonably well (test results). Our data protection policies are listed here.
[Research ethics] We reached out to the Health Research Authority. They answered that opencare does not fall within their remit, because it does not collect information on whether participants are healthy or not. We therefore fall back to opencare's ethics advisors as overseers.
All of the above was duly discussed with, and reported to, @markomanka .
May I insist that all WP leaders = partner main contact (this means @Alberto for ER, @markomanka  for SCIMPLULSE, @Costantino for WeMake, @Rossana_Torri for City of Milano and @Lakomaa for EHFF, me for UBx) dive into the GDocs and, for their own sake, make a rough evaluation of the expected work.