Versions Compared

Old Version 6

changes.mady.by.user Andrew Woods

Saved on

compared with

New Version 7

changes.mady.by.user Paul Albert

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

 
Item
Time
Facilitator
Notes
1Review agenda2 minAll
2Updates5 minAllSharing meeting facilitation duties, and other updates
3Staff Changes10debra/AllTechnical Team changes
4Cornell Hosted Meeting on the future of VIVO10Julia/All

Proposed Topics:

  • Improving stakeholder engagement - why have some key supporters drifted away, how can we win them back?
  • The relationship with Duraspace – Can it meet the key needs of the VIVO project? If not, what alternatives exist?
  • Current organizational structure – What works and what doesn’t? What should it become?
  • Product development: How do we structure the discussions and decisions around priorities and communication collaborations?
  • Funding: What is the present status? How can we achieve our potential?
  • How can we improve communications to stakeholders, the VIVO community, and to the public?
  • Collaborative projects – What could we/should we be doing?
6VIVO Vision10AllFollow up on previous discussion and introduce harvester topic
7Research Graph10Erin/MikeProgress report
8VIVO Stories Update10ErinTwo done, more scheduled. Determine format and schedule for publishing
9Your Item Here!


Notes

  • Alex: my former colleague Nate Prewitt didn't think there was a lot of energy towards centralized commitment. He also didn't think the existing technology appealed to developers.
  • Dean: if we're looking at the aging core infrastructure, we're going to need to focus on that. Distributed committer additions is not going to make that happen. Andrew: agreed.
  • Eric: yes, I think it's beyond maintenance.
  • Rob: even if we revive the VIVO codebase, is that enough?
  • Debra: there is a meeting planned in late January / February at Cornell to discuss the future of the project.
  • Tom: is there typically face to face meetings? Mike: there's the Conference and there's the Duraspace Summit.
  • Rob: it might be helpful to look back at what we wanted to do as part of our historical strategic plan.
  • Rob: if VIVO is perceived as plumbing, that becomes a gating factor. We noticed that with Fedora. That's where initiatives like Islandora came from.... One of my concerns is that a vendor solution will lock down our data.
  • Julia: I'm concerned that there are people who are participating who aren't members of the Leadership or Steering groups. Rob: I think people who participate should be active contributors (money or code) to the project.
  • Rob: the vision and technological architecture should be aligned. Dean: I think we should have a vision meeting.
  • Julia: it would be easy to have a meeting here if need be.
  • Rob: we could do it in NYC too.
  • Julia: I like the idea of submitting ideas ahead of time.
  • How should we have a meeting?
    • Julia: I think the composition should be Steering and Leadership.
    • Dean: I think we might want to have some outside expertise.
    • Rob: it was nice, in the case of Fedora, to have technology representation
    • Mark: I like face to face meeting with primary stakeholders.
    • Tom: I think a face to face, intensive meeting is worthwhile. I think it would be most valuable to define and/or confirm VIVO's vision as a product and community. I think it needs to include a frank assessment of the current tech stack. I think it should also look at resourcing and resourcing strategies as well as roles. I think any Leader or Steering reps should be there (perhaps excepting commerical partners), as well as any individual or institution who may be a contributor to an uplift. And yes, we should have technical experts there to have a high level tech discussion (but not actually do engineering or detailed design.)
    • Andi: I don't like face to face meetings.
  • Rob: how do we connect back to Curt?



 Action Items