Date
Attendees
https://bluejeans.com/128863099
Goals
- Come to agreement about final points in document that will be sent out to community for voting.
Discussion items
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 min | House keeping: update about phone call with Mark and Richard; see re-written intro in doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DtKOO8MJTU7k6svMrvO2lM_ZrMep1-6s0xVOSf05PUI/edit?usp=sharing notes from the meeting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ja_ZgJVjBea8EH-DoVRs3JVk6ya8q-kX_iPHKsKufaE/edit | Rosy, Carolyn, Mark | |
| 60 min | There are 11 items that need to be decided. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DtKOO8MJTU7k6svMrvO2lM_ZrMep1-6s0xVOSf05PUI/edit?usp=sharing
| Rosy, Carolyn |
|
| 15 min | Recap the sending out, the voting, next steps | Carolyn, Rosy, Ryan | |
| Components Council versus Roadmap Council - Because Avalon and HyRax are not technically Components - and not hosted in Hyrax Github |
Action items
For the document
- Update the term components council to roadmap council
- Update the overview section to talk about the documentation we've generated being available to future working groups
- Add a qualifier to say July or end of summer at the latest
- Remove the requirement for in person once per year
- “Will elect a Chair and Chair-Elect from among their membership” And let Steering sort out how in the bylaws.
Other action items
Meeting Notes
Housekeeping: Mark, Ryan, CC, Rosy, Richard Green - talk about what we're actually voting on -
Discussed what it was Steering saw us voting on - around steering implementing - Partners recommend and steering is implementing in partnership with Partners. Outcome of vote - want Steering to work with partners via WG's to clarify and implement rec's.
1 partner one vote, 2/3rds - will name numbers (ex: 24 of 36 partners).
Take it upon ourselves to make sure we get all the votes. It will take x number of Yes votes - to state we're moving forward.
Steering is not ratifying these rec's - Steering is implementing with Partners
How we will take the vote: identifying the contact - can't dictate how partners do that. Finding a contact to be able to say - collect voters ID via a Spreadsheet
Steering is culling some Partners who aren't active -
UK is closed the week of April 2 -
AI: Results of vote will be made public - note in doc
Comment about vote and contribution model in beginning--Can this be resolved now?Resolved
We resolved this question. New WG's will be formed.
We will pass on comments to any WG's working on Governance
Not more than one rep from any given Partner shall serve on the newly formed Steering. Need to come to agreement. Steering does not like this idea. Also need to come to agreement about when new election happens and subsequent.
We need to clarify - asking DCE, Hull and Stanford to make a decision 3 of the six people will step down
diverse body working together - multiple people from same institution
We are agreement on one rep per institution (figuring out exceptions can be worked out in bylaws by someone else)
If the agreement is only one rep from one institution, that should cover the issue of whether people need to rotate off if they move institutions or do we need to specify?
Pick July 18 as date, but we won't hit that, likely, for this election cycle - so we should just say summer 2018? End of summer at the latest.
Steering Meeting in person once per year- yay or nay?
Cost may be problematic - remote participation? Financial lever to that. Recommend f2f - but remote for those who can't be there. Don't codify that you HAVE to be there in person (tie steering to existing events),
Are meetings cumpolsory? If you miss X meetings, you're out? AGREEMENT: Remove language for in-person attendance
Can we just say - “Will elect a Chair and Chair-Elect from among their membership”? And let Steering sort it out. ⅓ restriction comment.
Have them sort it out. We just like Chair and Chair Elect! AGREED
Partners will have input to decide on order of which position will be hired first - Technical or Community Manager position. Yay or nay? Do we say Tech Manager first?
DuraSpace could take on some features and roles. Have transitional staff take care of it. that might lead us to want to hire one or the other first. Constraining that process when we don't know the funding - what parts of those jobs does Steering want done? What are the pieces we need filled?
A person would do tech coordination if he knew that there was a place to fall back.
Job would likely fall under DuraSpace - DuraSpace would handle the funds.
We are in agreement - needs of Community will drive the hiring
Principles for contribution model added - Partners will develop a contribution model which will get voted on, based on 4 Principles - Do we need to include all the verbage and brainstorming in this document?
In case of verbage - keep as appendix - Remove verbiage but keep the principles in place
Contribution Model–new WG or this one?
We will charter a new WG. Will be approved by majority 2/3rds
Resolved what happens when a PO steps away
Support Simeon’s comments about Components Council making language stronger?
Standing Working Groups? Do we need this?