2018-02-01 Samvera Governance WG Agenda and Meeting Notes
- rsteans
- Carolyn Caizzi
Date
Attendees
Goals
Discussion items
| Time | What | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 min | Review feedback on the Governance Review document | Steering has reviewed; review their feedback; make any relevant changes. | |
| 30 min | Discuss potential paths forward for developing a governance model recommendation | Two paths to consider:
| |
| 10 min | Wrap up and confirm action items |
Action items
- AI: One meeting 90 minutes on the 16th, small groups meet next week
- AI: Separate Docs but all public to each other -
- Group 1 simeon, anna, ryan - Stable Communication/ coordination plan
- Group 2 maria, Carolyn, Nabeela, - formal contributions
- Group 3 rosy, michele, evviva - Community defined roadmap or plan
Idea that we'd each write a draft document? Need at least an hour and a half for the next session? -
Give ourselves an extra week to get it out to everyone.
Small groups taking two weeks to develop - will discuss together on the 16th - will synthesize and meld together
Notes
We did get our document in on time. We're leaving the document open for review. Still encouraging people to make comments other places.
Potential paths forward for consideration:
The next stage is to draft a proposed model - by February 16th
1)Can map components from Porposed models that are out there to list of desired attributes - we can divide that up, synthesize components into one model
2) each team take one desired attributes and come up with a model to match the attribute
Can he a cohesive, unified model with a piecemeal process?
People hated the ALA model but is the Red Cross/ Apache model may be better
Evviva - ALA is really top heavy
Develop models in pairs? - more cohesive approach -
We may have more wiggle room - getting something to partners meeting and getting it to people prior to the partner's meeting
Do we know the problems that we're trying to sort out? - The attributes are a polite way of saying what the issues are.
- Roadmaps often aren't community defined.
- Stable communication isn't taking place.
- Formal contributions from partners aren't always clear.
- Relationships between groups aren't clearly articulated. Ex: difference between Steering and Partners
There is a reason Michele is here. He wasn't part of prior conversations.
Might make sense to break up along lines - based on why we're here. 3 of each kind. In order to address anxiety issues - we'll need to go back to Steering via Mark. Once we're in teh covo, it'll be more clear how to use Mark.
- Community not in governance group (evviva, nabeela, simeon)
- Community in governance group (maria, michele, anna)
- Facilitating the group (carolyn, ryan, rosy)
Drafting a model based on those desired attributes - each group has one attribute and will design a model based upon that attribute
Plan to address anxiety - just table that until we're getting plans out. Think about it as we're writing out our models.
"clearly articulated relationships" tied to "new roles"
Given Evviva's schedule -
- Group 1 simeon, anna, ryan - Stable Communication/ coordination plan
- Group 2 maria, Carolyn, Nabeela, - formal contributions
- Group 3 rosy, michele, evviva - Community defined roadmap or plan
In formal contributions - there may be articulated relationships - how do we say that the work done (code or on groups) is recognized? - Clearly articulated relationships is infused throughout.
Idea that we'd each write a draft document? Need at least an hour and a half for the next session? -
Give ourselves an extra week to get it out to everyone.
Small groups taking two weeks to develop - will discuss together on the 16th - will synthesize and meld together
Tell Mark we need another week. Not going to get everything synthesized until the 23rd. We will have something for Partners week of March 5th? March 5th open up for comments. 12th-15th synthezising. 16th - get it out to the community.
Set voting deadline immediately after Partners? Keep the ball rolling. Propose voting take place by early April 5th. Just has to take place within two weeks - can set deadline any time within two weeks.
Do we do a presentation at the beginning of the Community review? - This stuff is complicated when we read it on paper - and not everyone processes data the same way. February 19th - March 2nd.
Hold a recorded webinar week of February 26th -
March 2- March 16 - revise based on feedback - Send on March 19
AI: Separate Docs but all public to each other -
Use the Friday normal timeslot to meet.
AI: One meeting 90 minutes on the 16th, small groups meet next week
Hold a vote April 2nd - 9th