Institutional - are these characterisations accurate?
WGBH: US, cultural heritage, small/medium broadcaster
Lafayette: US, education, small college
Hull: UK, education, medium sized university
Northwestern: US, education, Avalon solution bundle, medium sized university
Cosector, London: UK, education, large university, service provider
Houston: US, education, medium sized university
Changes to the agenda
Working Group Charter
Is the Charter as drafted acceptable or does it need tweaking?
Is Richard's personal summary of the WG's task broadly accurate?
For a number of years Partners have struggled to understand just what is expected of them as Partners and, conversely, the Community has been a little fuzzy as to what they might get back in return. The decision to move towards one or two permanent staff, and the consequent need for a reliable and substantial funding stream, has brought this issue to the fore. Against the background of a need for significant funds I think it will be our job to broadly define what is expected of a Partner (no more Partners-in-name-only) and what they get in return. Additionally, there may be a group of non-Partners (let’s call them “supporters” for now) who might be prepared to give money to us because they have a vested interest in seeing our software continue to function and evolve – what do they get in return? Not all Partners are in a position to contribute large sums of money; many of them give considerable resources to the community as “in-kind” contributions and I believe that one of our challenges will be to somehow quantify those contributions. I’m thinking – and here, as elsewhere, I may be entirely wrong – that we will probably be working towards a recommended guideline that over a three(?) year period Partners are expected to contribute an average of at least $n,000 per year in cash and/or in-kind and to recommend how the in-kind contribution is calculated. I’d hope that we would never say “you missed your target by $300, so you can no longer be a Partner.” It may well be, too, that the recommended contribution varies by institution – which is part of the reason for trying to have a broad representation on this group.
If not - can we clarify what we think we are trying to achieve?
Develop an overview of the different types of Partner and Supporter
What is the range of background (education, cultural heritage etc), size (how do we define that?), etc
Develop a comprehensive list of actual and potential in-kind contributions to Samvera resources
Investigate other organizations for approaches to member participation and resourcing
Initial list of resources at foot of Charter page
Set homework tasks
Decide regular slot for WG calls
Date and time of next meeting
Any other business
The job we've been asked to do: solve the problem impacting the community - Redefine Partners. Prefer something more concrete. - As services are offered - how do we bring professional polish to what we do?
Governance groups thought about howe might structure community - Roadmap COuncil, CCWG and Elected Steering. Resources - how to have staff. Significant, reliable income stream.
Not just about money - and many will not be immediately able to provide money. So - In kind contributions. How do we quantify the in-kind contributions? It may be that we're heading toward: expectation of Partners. Each Institution will provide X dollars per year, in-cash and/or in-kind. Mix and Match.
Another side to coin - At the moment - don't want to be a partner, but I do like the software. Happy to contribute funds. What do they get in return for the money? Does enough money get them a vote? Etc...
Assembled groups - our job is to put together a set of recommendations for partners - have those recs in a state where a final version can be put in front of the Partners on the 8th of October. There will be a vote after that - formal vote requiring a 2/3rds majority.
Difference in what resources people are offering - (ex: experience of skill sets)
Sums of money may not make sense depending on how Universities are funded. Size of institution/company will influence how much they may be able to offer.
What we will take on in the short-term: Get an overview of what characterizes specific Partners in Samvera. We need to identify what people bring to the party - look at in-kind contributions.
Staff, travel, WG's, IG's
Put thought into "Supporters" - cash or time from folks who are not Partners
Investigate other organizations - list on Charter Page
Apereo quanitifies by country or continent -
May be other things to bring into the mix -
OTHER MODELS: DLF model, TDL model, DPN, DPLA - organizations may be different - Museums and Archives may be very different -
Numbers: ~$180K per year - ~$210 at DuraSpace
Partners bringing in about $60K per year
Is Fund Raising part of this? Not direct Fund Raising
Collect Data from partner institutions - Size of budget, school, get scope and scale of contribution, analysis of that data - get buy in by learning
Give people the choice of how they quantify it - maybe not by dollars, maybe by hours
Between now and next call - we each seek out additional models - think about kinds of in-kind contributions as people can make
Get together a list of models - tease out the things the group should pay particular attention to. - Do it in your own Google Doc -
Ryan Set meeting for 11:00 AM Eastern Starting on the 21st - starting every two weeks with a BlueJeans -
Set up a way to look at those different model approaches