2019-07-11 Outreach WG Agenda and Notes

LYRASIS and Duraspace formalized merger as of July 1. Now one organization. Does not affect names in Wiki or elsewhere. New person from LYRASIS (Laurie Arp) who specializes in "it takes a village" approach joining AG calls to help w/community building 

initial survey results (22 respondents out of 32):

• link to report
• link to analysis

23 total responses (one snuck in at last minute) - two-thirds response rate. Expected it to be high because respondents had already filled out EOI. Response rate for next round (everyone who has registered a NAAN) expected to be lower. Over half of respondents were from libraries. Over half were manager/supervisors, less than a quarter exec/board level and less than a quarter individual contributors. 

One stumbling block: we didn't request contact information. Challenging because if we want to follow up with people about responses (e.g., response about 200 people using ARKs in an organization) we don't know whom to contact. Not having contact information is detrimental to our goal of identifying people interested in being involved and contributing to this effort. 14 of 23 responses did include contact information. Might get more responses if contact info is optional, but responses w/contact info (even if we get fewer) are more meaningful and useful. Current thinking is to ask for contact info in next round. 

Q. How many people who are already involved (e.g., via working group) did not respond? Most of them did not. Should have made this clearer in our comms.

Other notes on the responses:

• More than 50% of respondents do not assign ARKs - this is a good sign. 
• Priority rankings show heavy preference for outreach (promoting ARK understanding and usage). This seems surprising. Did it get ranked so high because it was the first question? Is there something about how we farmed this that led to this result? (i.e., asking what AITO should do vs. what the community needs). Or about the group of respondents (i.e., they are already running their own resolvers and therefore don't need infrastructure). Maybe lower-priority responses will end up getting ranked higher among those who are not currently using ARKs but interested in doing so in the future. 
• Everything that we proposed is important to at least a subset of respondents
• Contributions - Also ranked high with regard to outreach. With regard to funding, most interest in open source development efforts.
• Anything we're not paying attention to that people thing is important? Some interesting responses here. E.g., public sector institutions can't contribute funds but can pay for services. Another person interested in supporting grant proposal.  Other comments that echo the priority ranking of outreach. 

survey review, strong indication for Outreach WG

• wikipedia page
• arks.org brochure site
• recruiting?

What else could/should we do to ramp up outreach efforts?

• Add other people to this group? Anyone from the survey? Original idea was 6-8. 
• Tracy will reach out to some people and get referrals. 
• Specific skills that we need? Video/animation
• Wikipedia page: Do a first pass to bring it up to date and then put out a call to the community? Action: everyone look at the existing Wiki page and then discuss suggested corrections/updates at our next call. Also look at other places to link out to, e.g., link to FAQs. 

next round survey from Outreach

reworking cover letter

Next steps: send survey out in next 1-2 weeks to everyone who has registered for a NAAN, with some changes based on insights from first round. If priority rankings are the same, it's a strong indication to ramp up outreach efforts. If priority rankings are vastly different, may need to rethink next steps. 

Next round of survey should be owned by Outreach WG.