Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.



  • Ryan Steans
  • Evviva Weinraub
  • Karen Estlund
  • Mark Bussey
  • Simeon Warner
  • Carolyn Caizzi
  • Anna Headley
  • Maria Whitaker
  • Michele Menniell
  • Nebella Jaffer
  • Rosalyn Metz



Review Charter


  • Context: the discussion summary document will be completed by 
    Friday, January 19th, 2018

  • Synthesis: the summary of themes will be completed and circulated by 
    Friday, January 19th, 2018

Possibly Useful Documents

Samvera Governance / Roadmapping/ Resourcing Activity - 2017-11-10


Governance Model Planning and Notes - RJS 2017-11-30

Action Items

Meet again 2018-01-12

Carolyn and Rosie - Co-Facilitators

Pull together small team to work on Context/ Synthesis doc


The scope of the Samvera Governance Working Group’s deliverables will be:

  • Context: A one-page summary of the discussion, documentation, and feedback to-date related to the various governance models under consideration.

  • Synthesis: A summary of the themes and issues that the community hopes to address by refining existing or adopting new governance practices and structures.  Ideally identifies key differences and decision points between the models provided for evaluation and current model.  This combined context and synthesis documents should be approximately 750-1500 words (1-3 pages)  in length

  • Draft: Development of a draft governance proposal and incremental steps to implementation if appropriate

  • Community Input: Circulation of the above to Partners, stakeholders, and the Steering group for review, comment, and change requests to the proposal

    • Legal Review: This step will be shepherded by Steering, as the proposed model will also be assessed for legal, licensing, and MOU implications prior to further community review.

  • Proposal: A revised governance proposal based on community, stakeholder, & legal feedback

  • Community Review: Circulation of the final proposal for potential adoption at a Spring/Summer 2018 partner meeting

Community Feedback

In the Comments for the establishment of the Working Group:  

    • Michael J. Giarlo

      Does the "governance proposal" necessary include details on how the community will resource shared work, and specifically software maintenance and development? I would find it difficult to support this group unless that is a stated focus of the proposal. (My understanding is that how we resource this shared work is what got us down this governance path in the first place, so I'm concerned that there's a risk this effort will be focused elsewhere. (smile))

    • Ryan Steans

      Great question, Mike.  I'll follow up.

    • Richard Green

      May I echo Mike's concern?  My recollection is that all this started in a discussion about how to make our software development "more professional" now that it seems clear there is likely to be a general community move toward Hyrax and, in particular maybe, commercial service providers using it through Hyku.  We all have a real need to understand the process: how we can feed into it (feature requests etc) and what changes might be coming and when that could affect our delivery systems (roadmap).  The more established community would also welcome a clearer view of how materials coming from IGs and WGs get fed into the process (or not), likewise feature requests from users, and who makes these decisions. Behind all this is the need to encourage and sustain software development.  So from a personal point of view, I feel that this WG might usefully take a "bottom-up" approach.  What does Samvera need at the software R&D level to maintain and further the product, and what resources will this take?  Next, how do we reliably put these resources together (both people and $$$) and then, to my mind last, what management structures are needed to organize all this.  During the first round of discussions I sometimes felt that the "models" were coming first, rather than our needs (a more top-down process).

      Somehow, during the last round, these software-related needs got conflated with community concerns which were not, I think, intended to be a primary focus.  The first WG did extensive work on a CAIRO matrix around software matters but did not do the same for the community side of things. Perhaps this group, too, should focus on software-related issues unless and until work goes into a similarly detailed CAIRO matrix about the community. 

      Ideally, to my mind, anything that is proposed will be compatible with an evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) implementation!  Purely personal thoughts...


Anna:  Define the problem statement the Working Group is trying to solve.  Does steering nor work anymore?  What was the issue or issues that drove a need for governance?