# data[].attributes.headline
Feedbacks on Covenant - Part 1 - in general

# data[].attributes.subject
Feedbacks on Covenant - Part 1 - in general

# data[].attributes.body
-         The document is still needed, mostly still relevant but in need of updating and fine-tunning, many colleagues were not aware of the document

-         Goal “focus mainly on strategic issues” is important but there is also the need to coordinate programme implementation issues, contribute to more efficient management to the programme;

-         we are implementing bodies with relevant experience, there could be less objectives, maybe three pillars: operational, practical, knowledge management of the network - common voice, joint setting of the agenda

-         capacity building of the directors (especially new ones to support them) and also NA staff is very important

-         we might support an outline of the role of the NA director – know what we do, what our competencies are and not, a general outline of the role of the Director – this is maybe a topic for rolling agenda;

-         goal “seeking formal recognition…” can be deleted, I would reformulate keeping cooperation with EC, agenda setting should be done with us;

-         contribution to the cooperation with the EC viewed important; co-creation with the Commission needs to be strengthened;

-         shaping of the Programme: there is a constant need in the cooperation and co-creation of the shaping of the Programme;

-         I think the networking aspect is not that important as strategic aspect but also very important for new directors;

-         we should use positive narrative, in this network it is very important to have an exchange and sometimes it is important to have a common voice;

-         “no trade union style” remark is obsolete now, it is redundant,

-         Discussion whether we should have a joint covenant with YOU DIR – conclusion: we need to have our own one and it doesn’t mean that in certain points we cannot agree with YOU and we can have common voice with YOU, we are colleagues, we have to trust each other and we do and it is important

-         maybe work commonly in IT tools which helps us to manage lifecycles and cooperation with youth would be more effective in some questions

-         youth is a separated network but it is already an achievement that we have experience of working with them in certain things

-         all of the documents are interlinked with youth network so it could be effective in working with them

# data[].attributes.headline
Feedback on Covenant - Part 2 - communication

# data[].attributes.subject
Feedback on Covenant - Part 2 - communication

# data[].attributes.body
-         communication channels could be better between three groups (Programme Management WG, network of NAs, E&T co-group)

-         if your NA is not involved into the WG you cannot have every information from them and what you should know

-         I think it’s important to have an information link between the two groups (Programme Management WG and E&T co-group) and also the whole network of NAs; I am missing the real collaboration and added value of the informal E&T co-group, I think the products and initiatives should be more stressed;

-         transparency of working groups – shadowing documents;

-         communication outside and within the network – it now only works via email but we should be more strategic with it and using something else, where we can share document and other things;

-         transparency, exchange good practices, communication – emails are not enough for that, probably an external one who have enough time can organise the communication between us, who can manage all of the things and support their communication in a better way;

# data[].attributes.headline
Feedback on Covenant - Part 3 - meetings and networking

# data[].attributes.subject
Feedback on Covenant - Part 3 - meetings and networking

# data[].attributes.body
-         the group should support organising the informal meetings (which relates to the presidency), trio is not always in coordinating group but coordinating group should always be in trio;

-         we are mostly focusing on informal meetings but there are many other things that we should focus on as well;

-         not too long meetings – I think we should consider that we should expand these meetings having focused agenda on the important topics and we should keep them into 1,5 days

-         how can we learn from each other? It is important to train the directors, but the network is very large and there are many networks as well; there are well functioning networks and we should learn from each others

-         we should be more effective, we should not add new networks, working groups because they are all more and more

# data[].attributes.headline
Feedback on Covenant - Part 4 - dont's and digital platform

# data[].attributes.subject
Feedback on Covenant - Part 4 - dont's and digital platform

# data[].attributes.body
-         don’t are important but they are also negative narratives and we should mostly focusing on positive narratives so we might skip them and change them into positive way, rewording, reformulation into positive narrative; narrative which reflect on the spirit of the network;

-         What do you mean don’t abuse of media?  - not all the don’t belong here to anymore;

-         sometimes sharing information on digital platforms can save our time, so the whole objective thing should be saved - but we have many digital platforms that we should follow, besides the commission ones there are many internal ones to Nas

-         what was our digital platform? It was run by Polish colleagues previously

-         importance of useful communication channels where we can share relevant documents;

# data[].attributes.headline
Feedback on Covenant - Part 5- decision making flow & miscellaneous

# data[].attributes.subject
Feedback on Covenant - Part 5- decision making flow & miscellaneous

# data[].attributes.body
-         we appreciate the work of network, sometimes I question myself, how should we react when we receive a paper from the network? we should agree on the rules how should we react, decision making process should be set up;

-         there is a lifecycle in the agenda setting and decision-making and it should be clear and better communicated

-         it is not transparent who is doing what and who is talking to whom on what issue, it should be changed;

-         restructure the flow between us;

-         key results: articulating the impact of the programme – it is not part of the first part. Are we doing that when we are not giving recommendations? Do we do it in a separate moment? – probably not

-         how we could as network support TCAs and LTAs, use them as a strategic and stronger role, like how can we balance needs and capacities among NAs, all SALTOs can support these objectives;

-         in youth there are two secretaries who are responsible for these tasks; we might think about it to the future, we can investigate the opportunity for that;