18luck新利官网登录网址-新利18登录官网-新利快乐彩

��ࡱ�>�� XZ��W��7 ��WbjbjUU %l7|7|�S��l(((((((<> > > 8v � $<�� "� � � � � � ��$� ��(� � � � � ��((� � �� (� (� �� t((t� � M�ca��<> �tt$�0t��t�<<((((�Minutes of the Annual General Meetings (AGMs) of the Cochrane Collaboration and the Collaboration Trading Company Limited Stavanger, Norway Thursday 1 August 2002 [These minutes were approved on 29 October 2003.] Present: Clive Adams, Claire Allen, Henning Keinke Andersen, Gerd Antes, Charlotte Archibald, Hilda Bastian, Sylvia Bickley, Livia Candelise, Rachel Churchill, Kathie Clark, Mike Clarke, Mandy Collingwood, Jane Cracknell, Luis Gabriel Cuervo, Mark Davies, Jon Deeks, Chris Del Mar, Vittorio Demicheli, Jane Dennis, Kay Dickersin, Liz Dooley, Cindy Farquhar, Marica Ferri, Graziella Filippini, Hazel Fraser, Davina Ghersi, Bill Gillespie, Julie Glanville, Christian Gluud, Adrian Grant, Sally Green, Jeremy Grimshaw, Metin G�lmezoglu, Frans Helmerhorst, Sonja Henderson, David Henderson-Smart, Dymphna Hermans, Jini Hetherington (minutes), Andrew Herxheimer, Kate Hey, Sophie Hill, Ciprian Jauca, Ruth Jepson, Kate Jewitt, Maria Judd, Katharine Ker, Monica Kjeldstr�m, Jos Kleijnen, Thilo Kober, Georg Koch, Ron Kortz, Peter Langhorne (Chair), Toby Lasserson, Rosanne Leipzig, Steff Lewis, Youping Li, Alessandro Liberati, Jan Lilleyman, Kirsty Loudon Olsen, John MacDonald, Steve McDonald, Marijke Moll, Tess Moore, Miranda Mugford, Jim Neilson, Malcolm Newdick, Melissa Ober, Samuel Ochieng, Arne Ohlsson, Nancy Owens, Jordi Pardo, Donald Patrick, Victoria Pennick, Elizabeth Pienaar, Tracey Remmington, Rachel Richardson, Bernd Richter, Reive Robb, Caroline Rouse, George Rutherford, Bernardo Soares, Rob Scholten, Silvana Simi, Vicki Sparkes, Mark Starr, Jonathan Sterne, Lesley Stewart, Elena Telaro, Lisa Tjosvold, Peter Tugwell, Elizabeth Waters, Elizabeth Weir, Chris Williams, Hywel Williams, Narelle Willis, Timothy Wilt, and Richard Wormald. Other welcome visitors (whose names were not recorded) were also present. 1. Welcome, apologies for absence, and approval of the agenda Peter Langhorne introduced himself, welcomed everyone to the meeting, and explained the purpose and structure of the Annual General Meetings (AGMs). Peter also explained that the entities of the Collaboration are its members, and that one representative from each entity had been invited to attend the meetings, but that everyone was very welcome. He apologised that it had not been possible to bring forward the start time of the meeting to give longer for discussion, because people attending the Colloquium would have set other meetings either side of the AGMs. In future years, it was agreed that at least one hour should be scheduled for the AGMs. The agenda of these meetings was approved. There had been no apologies for absence, and no-one had provided any written questions in advance of the meeting, as they had been given the opportunity to do. 2. Steering Group membership The outgoing and incoming members of the Steering Group introduced themselves. Peter Langhorne (Chair), Ruth Jepson (Reviewer representative), Youping Li (Centre representative) and Elena Telaro (Centre representative) ceased to be members of the Steering Group during this meeting, and were thanked for all their hard work whilst on the Steering Group. Mark Davies (Reviewer representative), Jon Deeks (Methods Group representative), Sally Green (Centre representative), Steff Lewis (CRG representative), Jordi Pardo (Centre representative) and Peter Tugwell (Co-ordinating Editor representative) joined the Steering Group at the Annual General Meeting. Peter explained that David Wilkinson had resigned from the Steering Group mid-term, and had been replaced by Steff Lewis to represent members of Collaborative Review Groups (one of the two �at large� CRG representative positions). 3. Approval of minutes of The Cochrane Collaboration's AGM of 13 October 2001, and matters arisingPeter Langhorne moved the adoption of the minutes of the previous AGM of The Cochrane Collaboration (the registered charity), and was seconded by Davina Ghersi: the minutes were approved without amendment. No matters arising from that meeting were raised for discussion. 4. Approval of minutes of the Trading Company's AGM of 13 October 2001, and matters arisingJos Kleijnen moved the adoption of the minutes of the previous AGM of the Collaboration Trading Company, and was seconded by Peter Langhorne. The minutes were approved without amendment. No matters arising from that meeting were raised for discussion. Jos explained that the Trading Company is the wholly owned subsidiary of The Cochrane Collaboration, set up to receive the royalties from subscriptions to The Cochrane Library. Any profit to the Trading Company at the end of the financial year is handed over to The Cochrane Collaboration. 5. Appointment of Trading Company Director to replace Chris Silagy Jos Kleijnen explained that the criteria for being a Director of the Trading Company are that all Directors must be ex-members of the Steering Group, and preferably have held the office of Treasurer while on the Steering Group. Based on these criteria, Peter Langhorne had been invited to replace Chris Silagy as a Director. Sally Green proposed the approval of this appointment, and was seconded by David Henderson-Smart. 6. Annual Report to Companies House Jos Kleijnen explained that this Annual Report had been circulated to entities on paper, in advance of the Annual General Meetings. It was agreed that in future documents for the AGMs should be circulated further in advance if possible, preferably by courier to countries far from the U.K.; the Secretariat was asked to investigate whether the documents could also be included in the Colloquium conference packs in future. Mike Clarke moved the approval of the Annual Report, and was seconded by Jim Neilson. Action: Jini Hetherington 7. Financial Statements for the year to 31 March 2002 Jos Kleijnen explained that the figures contained in the Financial Statements had been audited by Mazars Neville Russell, The Cochrane Collaboration�s auditors. He explained that the report from the auditors would not be added to the Financial Statements until they had received signed copies of the documents. The question was asked as to how the assets were used: Jos explained that some money went towards staff salaries (of the Administrator, the Deputy Administrator, and the Quality Improvement Manager), the running costs of The Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat, and reimbursement of expenses of members of the Steering Group, who are the trustees of the charity. Other funds are allocated to specific projects of Collaboration-wide benefit, as approved by the Steering Group. Malcolm Newdick, the Company Secretary, moved the adoption of the Financial Statements, and was seconded by Jordi Pardo. It was agreed that the auditors should provide the Financial Statements in electronic read-only format (i.e. as a PDF file) in future, so that they can be circulated to all entities well in advance of the Annual General Meetings.Action: Jini Hetherington 8. Re-appointment of auditors Jos Kleijnen said he felt that The Cochrane Collaboration�s current auditors, Mazars, had been doing a satisfactory job. Monica Kjeldstr�m proposed that they be reappointed, and was seconded by Gerd Antes. THIS CONCLUDES THE PART OF THE AGMs THAT IS NECESSARY TO FULFIL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. 9. New publishing arrangement for the output of The Cochrane Collaboration Jim Neilson chaired this section of the meeting. He introduced himself and then spoke about the proposed new arrangements for publishing The Cochrane Collaboration�s output. He said that this had caused some anxiety and required detailed discussion during this meeting, which could run on for 45 minutes longer than had been allocated in the programme. He apologised to anyone who would need to leave before then because of other commitments. Peter Langhorne opened the discussion by explaining the process for tendering for a new publishing arrangement, saying that it had taken place over a long period of time. He explained that the decision to obtain a new publishing arrangement for the output of The Cochrane Collaboration had been taken by the Steering Group in October 2000. Hilda Bastian, Mike Clarke, Chris Williams and Peter himself had been asked to move forward with this, using a standard practice for such commercial processes that included the need to keep many discussions confidential so as to ensure that all potential publishers had an equal opportunity to prepare proposals. In the subsequent months, Mike Clarke had spent a great deal of time trying to identify someone without a conflict of interest to act as consultant to the Steering Group. A suitable independent consultant, Anthony Watkinson, was identified in mid-2001 and a Request for Proposals was drafted. The Steering Group discussed this at length during their meeting in Lyon in October 2001. It was agreed that key features of the RFP should be that the main priority was to improve the accessibility of The Cochrane Collaboration�s output, and to achieve an annual income of 500,000 pounds sterling for the centralised activities of the Collaboration. In addition, it was agreed that innovative proposals should be encouraged. The Request For Proposals (RFP) was subsequently finalised and had been advertised at the beginning of this year. Ten proposals had been received by the end of February 2002. Peter explained that the selection panel, which did the shortlisting of applications and the interviews of applicants, comprised a majority of members of the Steering Group (as agreed by the Steering Group in October 2001). The selection panel members are Gerd Antes, Hilda Bastian, Mike Clarke, Metin G�lmezoglu, Peter Langhorne, Jim Neilson, Elena Telaro and Chris Williams, and Anthony Watkinson. Drummond Rennie is acting as an adviser to the panel because of his experience in publishing from a USA perspective, and Monica Kjeldstr�m is acting as an adviser because of her software expertise. Interviews were held on 9 May 2002 at Heathrow Business Centre, UK. The panel agreed unanimously to enter into discussions with John Wiley and Sons, and the Steering Group unanimously supported this decision. These discussions are ongoing, as are discussions between John Wiley and Sons and Update Software. It is hoped that, following these discussions, the details of a proposal for a new publishing arrangement for the output of The Cochrane Collaboration will be available for circulation in September 2002. Peter said that the process had identified excellent opportunities to enhance the importance and recognition of The Cochrane Collaboration �brand�, and the ethos and mission of the Collaboration. He confirmed that the aim was for a smooth transition from the current to the new arrangement, and that there would be wide consultation to ensure that the needs and desires of The Cochrane Collaboration were adequately reflected in the new arrangement. He gave assurances that The Cochrane Collaboration would have control over its output under a new publishing arrangement. Jim Neilson highlighted that this is a commercial arrangement, and different from everything else we do in The Cochrane Collaboration. The issue of financial return is also an important consideration, as are improving the scientific quality of, and copy editing, Cochrane reviews. He explained that nothing had yet been agreed, and that when the proposal from John Wiley and Sons is available, members of the Collaboration will be fully consulted. Kay Dickersin (New England Cochrane Center at Providence) asked if there was anyone in the auditorium from Update Software or John Wiley and Sons. People from Update Software were present. She asked how the decision about the Collaboration�s future publishing arrangements would be made. Mike Clarke explained that, ultimately, it would be a decision for the Steering Group, advised by the panel. He said that the Wiley proposal had been chosen as the one most likely to achieve the aims of the Collaboration and that it included a role for Update Software. Luis Gabriel Cuervo (BMJ Clinical Evidence) asked if we could have details of all the applications. Mike Clarke explained that this was up to the panel, but that the tenders could not be shared, to protect the anonymity of the applicants and their proposals (some of which had been supplied as �commercial in confidence�), and also because the final content of an �application� involved a variety of documents, exchanges of e-mails, and the presentations and discussion during the interviews. Jeremy Grimshaw (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group) said that as the Steering Group was elected to represent the members of The Cochrane Collaboration, the members should not expect to be consulted about every decision it makes. He said that there seemed to have been �due process�. He referred to Iain Chalmers� recent document to all entities on this matter, and asked what changes were envisaged and what the end product would look like. Peter Langhorne said that no decisions had yet been taken on any of these matters, and that things would become clearer when the revised proposal became available and could be shared with the members. Mike Clarke reiterated that when the written proposal became available, the key features would be shared with the members. Ron Kortz (Los Angeles) said that these concerns were in danger of interfering with what we are all about. Mike Clarke agreed entirely, and said that the key thing in the new arrangement would be accessibility: there would be some income generation, but it was not about generating profit. Clive Adams (Schizophrenia Group) thanked the Steering Group and the panel for their huge efforts. However, he said that people liked The Cochrane Library, and liked the potential for derivative products, and hoped that any negotiations for a new publishing arrangement would be generally separate from a measurable means of development of these products that would be audited as the contract matured. He proposed that the Collaboration�s position should be to endeavour to retain The Cochrane Library and its derivative products, and that this should be stated in the terms of the contract. Mike Clarke said that the difficulty was to know what The Cochrane Library is - the name, the current content, or both. Clive Adams said that The Cochrane Library has already done a most amazing job and it can do more: it should not be fragmented. Peter Langhorne said that it would be hard to look into the future if the look and content of the product was determined now. Clive said it should remain an entity for the next five years. Mike Clarke said a smooth transition would be the best way forward to improving the accessibility of the output of The Cochrane Collaboration, and that this transition would involve between six and twelve months of consultation during the first year of a new publishing arrangement. Clive said that it would not be advisable to disaggregate The Cochrane Library, and that it should be the default, giving everyone a chance to have input. Kay Dickersin (New England Cochrane Center at Providence) asked what was called for in the Request For Proposals. Mike Clarke explained that proposals were invited for publishing the output of The Cochrane Collaboration, including The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Methodology Register, and the Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews. He said it would not be correct to say that CENTRAL was not included in that invitation. A question was asked about dissemination in developing countries, and Mike Clarke confirmed that it was very important to provide greater access in these countries. Georg Koch (German Cochrane Centre) asked who would own the copyright and whether abstracts of Cochrane Reviews would continue to be made available on the Internet, free of charge. Mike Clarke said the new publishing arrangement would either improve the current copyright position or leave it unchanged. Bill Gillespie (Musculoskeletal Injuries Group) asked whether the Steering Group would have control of The Cochrane Collaboration�s products, into which hundreds of people had put their effort. Peter Langhorne confirmed that there was no proposal up for discussion yet, but it was very much the intention that the Collaboration should have control. Mike Clarke said that there was no reason to be concerned that control would be lost, and that there would be a right of veto in the new publishing arrangement; Jim Neilson reaffirmed this. Mark Starr (Update Software) asked whether the Request For Proposals (RFP) could be made publicly available. Mike Clarke said that the RFP would be made available to those who asked for it. However, it would not be put onto The Cochrane Collaboration web site without the opportunity to explain how it was worded in the way that it was. People interested in having a copy of the RFP should contact him individually. Rachel Richardson (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, York, UK) asked whether other databases were valued parts of The Cochrane Library. Mike Clarke said that databases that were not owned by The Cochrane Collaboration and did not contain its output had not been included in the RFP. He said that the new publishing arrangement would include an opportunity for discussions with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination about how the output it contributes to The Cochrane Library could be integrated in any new products. Alessandro Liberati (Italian Cochrane Centre) said that this was a very important decision and that he understood the difficult process the Steering Group was going through. He asked whether the whole process could be made transparent retrospectively by circulating a summary report to all entities. Mike Clarke clarified that the applicants would have to give their permission for this, as some applications were commercially confidential documents. However, Mike agreed to send a summary of the process and the RFP to all Cochrane entities when the proposal was ready. Miranda Mugford (Health Economics Methods Group) said that the Collaboration should be careful in dealing with a commercial company but that this was an economic decision. She asked what the timetable was. Mike Clarke said that The Cochrane Library would continue to be published throughout 2003. This was part of the negotiations between John Wiley and Sons and Update Software, and was the wish of The Cochrane Collaboration. He said that things would not be rushed, and that the panel are trying to do the best job possible. Hywel Williams (Skin Group) said that the panel had a difficult job to do on behalf of the organisation. He asked the panel to try to maintain a negotiating position such that The Cochrane Library was not disaggregated. Clive Adams seconded this request and a vote was asked for. Mike Clarke pointed out that Update Software has claimed that they own �The Cochrane Library� and, therefore, The Cochrane Collaboration cannot make any guarantees about its future. Jim Neilson asked Hywel and Clive to prepare the wording of the motion that they were suggesting should be voted on. Gerd Antes (German Cochrane Centre and panel member) said that the panel is very aware that The Cochrane Library is identified in a major way with The Cochrane Collaboration, and commented on the great complexity of the whole process. Hilda Bastian (Cochrane Consumer Network and panel member) asked whether the Steering Group was going to do a piece of consumer research, to ask how consumers and users felt about some of the available options. Alessandro Liberati (Italian Cochrane Centre) said that the time to give feedback is when the draft proposal is circulated to all entities. Julie Glanville (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) asked whether the consultation would include issues relating to the functionality of the product. Mike Clarke said that it would, but that most of the changes to the functionality would take place through the usual channels during the lifetime of the product. He explained that the Publishing Policy Group made such decisions. The vote proposed by Hywel Williams and seconded by Clive Adams committing the Steering Group to retaining the name �The Cochrane Library� was withdrawn. Jim Neilson confirmed that there would be full consultation throughout The Cochrane Collaboration. Mike Clarke said that the Steering Group and the panel had welcomed this opportunity to make the position about the tendering process clearer, and hoped some concerns had been appeased. He reiterated that the Steering Group was attempting to do the best job possible to make decisions on behalf of the members of the Collaboration. 10. Monitoring and Registration Group report Samuel Ochieng explained the role of this sub-group of the Steering Group. He highlighted that the 6% developing country involvement in the work of the Collaboration in 2000 had risen to 8% in 2002. He also highlighted the usefulness of distance learning programs and web sites in the work of the Collaboration. 11. Any other business None. Jim Neilson thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting at 2.30 p.m. The meeting lasted for one and a half hours. PAGE PAGE 1 {��PW#8v��u��J��n�^��Smq�d � � !!!q#s#%:9:�;�;'<;<�<�<??lG�G�H�H)L=L NN�N�N�OP�S�S�U�U�U'W(W)W*WDW��5�6�CJaJ5�6�CJaJCJaJCJaJ6�CJ]�aJCJaJ5�CJ\�aJ5�CJ\�aJ6�CJ\�]�aJ5�CJaJCJaJG{��78w��su��m�]��^��^�� 0�^��`�0��0�7$8$H$^��`�0�7$8$H$ $7$8$H$a$$a$�W�W��p�b c � � !,(-(}+~+}/~/@1A1u3v3d5e5�9�9i<j<c?��^�� 0�^��`�0��0�7$8$H$^��`�0�7$8$H$c?d?[A\ABB3C4CQERE�F�FIIBKCKWMXM�O�O�P�P�Q�QpSqS�U�U�U��^��U�U)WCWDWLW�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W��h��]�h�h]�h��&`#$$a$��`��^��DW�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W�W��CJaJCJaJ0JCJmHnHu0JCJj0JCJU0J j0JU6�CJaJCJaJ#0P��/ ��=!�"�#��$��%� i@@��@ Normal CJOJQJ^J_HmH sH tH @@@ Heading 1$7$8$@&H$ 5�CJ\�22 Heading 2$@&5�\�<A@��< Default Paragraph Font,�, Header �9r , @, Footer �9r 4B@4 Body Text7$8$H$CJJC@"J Body Text Indent�0�7$8$H$`�0�CJ&)@�1& Page Number�Sl��{��78w� � su��m�]��p�bc��,$-$}'~'}+~+@-A-u/v/d1e1�5�5i8j8c;d;[=\=>>3?4?QARA�B�BEEBGCGWIXI�K�K�L�L�M�MpOqO�Q�Q�Q�Q)SCSDSLS�S�S�S�S�S�S�S�S�S�S�S�S�S0��0��0��0��0��0��0��0��0��0��0��0��0��0��0��0��0��@0��@0��@0��@0��@0��@0��0��0��0��@0��@0��@0��0��0��@0��0��@0��0��@0��0��@0��0��@0��0��@0��0��@0��0��@0��0��@0��0��@0��@0��@0��@0��@0��0��@0��0��@0��0��@0��@0��@0��0��@0��0��@0��@0��@0��@0��@0��@0��@0��0��@0��@0��@0��0��0��0��@0��@0��@0��@0��@0��@0��@0��@0��@0��0��@0��@0��@0�� 0DW�W/5�c?�U�W0234�W1!�!�� ?FOVX]^g��7?AGHMOXYb��,34;ak��+46=T[y�� %,aht{��28PV]e��>D��# * ."7"%"%�%�%& & &&=&C&d&m&y&&�/�/l1t1�2�2�2�2{4�4�5�5j8o8k9p9�:�:>>D?S?XI]I6J;J ?@ABCDEF��HIJKLMN��PQRSTUV��Y��Root Entry�� F�_�ca��[�1Table��7�WordDocument��%lSummaryInformation(��GDocumentSummaryInformation8��OCompObj��jObjectPool��_�ca��_�ca�� FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8�9�q