To join the Meeting:
To join via Room System:
Video Conferencing System: bjn.vc -or-18.104.22.168
Meeting ID : 871181317
To join via phone :
+1.408.740.7256 (United States)
+1.888.240.2560 (US Toll Free)
+1.408.317.9253 (Alternate number)
(see all numbers - http://bluejeans.com/numbers)
2) Enter Conference ID : 871181317
Karen Cariani (WGBH, Boston)
Nora Egloff (Lafayette College)
Richard Green (University of Hull)
Ryan Steans (Northwestern University)
Steph Taylor (CoSector, London)
Annie Wu (University of Houston)
- 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?
- Initial tasks
- 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
- Next meetings
- 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