Page Comparison

...

Maria Whitaker (Indiana U.)

Event Recording:

Agenda:

1. Update on March Partner Meeting:
   1. Advance notice: Contribution Model Working Group established by Partner Meeting will likely be seeking members next week: Richard Green
      Extensive minutes on the website as well as recording, should be available via the wiki. Samvera needs a solid and well understood contribution model if it is going to put together a permanent position or two. Ryan and Richard will be putting out a call for participation in a contribution working group. We need a strategy to raise ongoing funds in an ongoing basis. Samvera has other financial needs outside of these positions that need to be considered. We have never required money for partnership, from the beginning and we need to make sure that organizations that don’t have money still have the ability to provide contributions in kind. Partners will produce a report (may be an interim report) prior to fall Samvera connect, so that recommendations can be in place for 2019 fundraising opportunity. Currently looking for 3-4 members (from the meeting) and 3-4 those not at the meeting, North American and Outside of North American partners, as well as non-University Libraries to represent the diverse group of partners to be part of this group.
2. Update on Samvera Governance Vote: Mark Bussey / rsteans
   

   Mark providing an update. Votes went out to 35 partner institutions, we have 31 ballots returned, all in-favor at this point. We are reaching out to remaining institutions today for those 4 remaining. Certainly feels like a consensus at 31 in favor and no dissenting, the 4 outstanding seem to be in positional transitions where it’s been difficult to track down who should vote. We have more than 2/3 of the vote to be considered broad support. Used Election Buddy and seemed like a valuable tool for a limited cost ($19 per vote).

   Most feedback for the governance document has been around

   • the funding models for staff support, and contribution model (how to balance financial contributions with contributions in-kind — we need contributors in terms of code, testing, documentation, project management, etc.), 
   • steering group transition and how that should be done to ensure a knowledge transfer and we can continue to carry the community forward. 
   • the mechanics and logistics of hiring centralized staff, we currently don’t have the funding to do this. In the absence of getting the funding to do this would we hire one or have organizations donate time, or only fill the most important aspects of each position or only fill one position entirely.
   • Linda (Cincinnati) gave an aside, reporting on her conversations with her Dean and Chief Technology Officer, when she briefed them before casting her vote.  The Dean expressed a hope that despite the organization growing bigger and more bureaucratic, our open source organization could still balance democratic decision making and agile culture.  She responded that this was our hope as well, and a major motivation for our governance work, so that it would be clear to participants how we go about democratic decision making.  There were also questions about the contribution model and the costs of staffing and how that might translate to local costs, and Linda shared the discussion from Partners that indicated that financial contributions from Partners would continue to be voluntary, and that in-kind contributions would still be greatly encouraged, and thus that the contribution model will be developed in order to balance and recognize all contributions. 

...