...
In kind and economic contribution are both viable.
DCE could make in-kind contributiions before $ institutions. Easier to make staff contributions. What does in-kind look like? Open - project is perhaps elitist and privileged. Barrier for participation low would be a hallmark of a good solution.
A formula applied - a matrix
We did discuss in-kind - how much in-kind versus money - Managing in-kind is work itself. Will be a full time.
How do small orgs participate, how to contribute
Steering - aware that they need to raise funding. As project grows.
When Adam Wead was at Rockhall - small group making disproporionate contribution - sheer hours put in. Hard to figure the calculus. Historically - no barrier to entry.
Partnership versus Community barrier to entry.
Putting a technical lead in place - it's not just the coordination but also resourcing of development - a partner accountability statement - an expectation of certain number of hours. So, need to make sure people are contributing hours, get them to commit time that Tech Coordinator is managing.
Why a Tech Coordinator versus Community Coordinator - Is the gap in community organization, or technical organization. So much feedback that the issue was one of technical coordination - responding to resourcing questions.
Tech Coordinator (Group 2) was not a developer, but more of someone managing the technical resources - calGroup 3 called it a technical lead instead of Chief Technical Coordinator
We just provide a job idea/ desc and send it forward (an example in Group 2 proposal)
Last three bullet points in Group 2's Technical coordinator might be in the ocmmunity coordinator - top 3
Steering - name is similar to other groups and connected groups
So what has changed - what will change and is modified -
Make it clear Steering has been doing a good job. Done good work - so we're building on that success. We may have a new Steering that's very similar to the existing Steering group.
Communicate the change - of voting, that there is changing.
What we want structure to look like, and how we get to that structure. Implementation details make it clear what the nature of the change is. (ugh, bad sentence). Organized in priority order - what has to happen (maybe dependencies). Move to electing members of steering. Once we do that, easier to do everything else. Updating bylaws - from perspective of new steering. There are bylaws on the Samvera Wiki.
Steering asking for evolutionary rather than evolutionary. Coming up with election process - makes everything easier. Putting in place - how to allow people to vote on governance model.
starting from election process for steering - good priority - tied to clear responsibility and distribution of responsibilities -
Each Partner would get a vote (a single vote) -
Every cycle at DuraSpace - one person they talk to about voting -
Agreed on 1 vote per institution - to vote on Steering
AI: Go through and update contact list
Barrier to partnership has been the MOU and CLA and plan of what you want to do and showing that you've got a Samvera instance up and going
How do we figure partners in good standing? Financial contribution
Partners - monetary - in-kind/ encforcement of that - Community manager - checking in with steering, etc.. working with tech coorindator to establish controbutions of FTEs. Did these people actualy do any work?
Steering the option to de-Partner someone? Probably automatic - not make the bar super high. Language "board member has to make a personally significant financial contribution".
"Good standing" notion rather than kicking someone out - take that to Steering. Don't worry about the gap. Enforcement via body of partners?
difference between project mgmt council (PMC) for each project - and component council - should we have separate PMCs as separate for major products - and one PMC for Component group
Ongoing mgmt needs for way to have an ongoing - concrete body - IGs ongoing but no deliverables, WG's end, PMCs ongoing permanent work
Group 2 (Simeon, Anna, Ryan: Stable Communications// Coordination Plan)
...