2018-02-01 Samvera Governance WG Agenda and Meeting Notes

Owned by rsteans
Last updated: Feb 01, 2018

Date

Attendees

Goals

Discussion items

TimeWhatWhoNotes
10 minReview feedback on theĀ Governance Review documentĀ Steering has reviewed; review their feedback; make any relevant changes.
30 minDiscuss potential paths forward for developing a governance model recommendation

Two paths to consider:

  1. Map the components of the proposed models to desired attributes.
    1. Review the desired attributes listed in the Governance Review document;
    2. Divide the working group up and map components of the proposed models to attributes.
    3. Synthesize components of the models to develop a proposed model
  2. Draft a small solution and grow
    1. Divide the working group up and assign an attribute
    2. Sub-groups develop a model based on one desired attribute
    3. Come back together to synthesize.
10 minWrap up and confirm action items


Action items

  • AI:Ā  One meeting 90 minutes on the 16th, small groups meet next week
  • AI:Ā  Separate Docs but all public to each other -Ā 
  • 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?Ā  Need at least an hour and a half for the next session? -Ā 

Give ourselves an extra week to get it out to everyone.Ā Ā 

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.Ā  We're leaving the document open for review.Ā  Still encouraging people to make comments other places.Ā Ā 

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 heavyĀ 

Develop models in pairs? - more cohesive approach -Ā 

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.Ā Ā 

  • Roadmaps often aren't community defined.Ā Ā 
  • Stable communication isn't taking place.
  • Formal contributions from partners aren't always clear.Ā Ā 
  • Relationships between groups aren't clearly articulated.Ā  Ex:Ā  difference between Steering and Partners

There is a reason Michele is here.Ā  He wasn't part of prior conversations.Ā Ā 

Might make sense to break up along lines - based on why we're here.Ā  3 of each kind.Ā  In order to address anxiety issues - we'll need to go back to Steering via Mark.Ā  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)

DraftingĀ  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.Ā  Think about it as we're writing out our models.Ā Ā 

"clearly articulated relationships" tied to "new roles"

Given Evviva's schedule -Ā 

  • 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 relationshipsĀ  - how do we say that the work done (code or on groups) is recognized? - Clearly articulated relationships is infused throughout.Ā Ā 

Idea that we'd each write a draft document?Ā  Need at least an hour and a half for the next session? -Ā 

Give ourselves an extra week to get it out to everyone.Ā Ā 

Small groups taking two weeks to develop - will discuss together on the 16th - will synthesize and meld together

Tell Mark we need another week.Ā  Not going to get everything synthesized until the 23rd.Ā  We will have something for Partners week of March 5th?Ā  March 5th open up for comments.Ā  12th-15th synthezising.Ā  16th - get it out to the community.Ā Ā 

Set voting deadline immediately after Partners? Keep the ball rolling.Ā  Propose voting take place by early April 5th.Ā  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.Ā  February 19th - March 2nd.Ā 

Hold a recorded webinar week of February 26th -Ā 

March 2- March 16 - revise based on feedback - Send on March 19

AI:Ā  Separate Docs but all public to each other -Ā 

Use the Friday normal timeslot to meet.Ā 

AI:Ā  One meeting 90 minutes on the 16th, small groups meet next week

Hold a vote April 2nd - 9thĀ 



  • Ā