- Margaret Mellinger (Oregon State University)
- Richard Green (University of Hull) - first part of call only
- Carolyn Caizzi (Northwestern)
- Franny Gaede (University of Oregon)
- Rick Johnson (University of Notre Dame)
- Ryan Steans (Avalon/ Northwestern)
- mike korcynski (Tufts University)
- Dan Coughlin (Penn State University)
- Karen Cariani (WGBH)
- Andrew Rouner (Washington University in St. Louis)
- Esmé Cowles (Princeton)
- Linda Newman (Cincinnati)
- Chris Awre (Hull)
- Nabeela Jaffer (Michigan)
- Andrew Rouner (Washington University in St. Louis)
- Simeon Warner (Cornell)
- Sebastian Palucha (York)
Widget Connector url https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-9M9rsshhs
- Amend and approve this agenda
Samvera Partner meeting - fall 2018
Should we attach a Partner meeting to Connect 2018 at the University of Utah (8-11 October)?
- Discussion and feedback from email responses: Brian, Richard & Utah colleagues had a call to determine when a Partner meeting could fit in the schedule. About 6 responses so far: yes, we should have a partner meeting, but no agreement on when. Still up in the air. We need to make that decision today.
...and, if so, when?
Decision needed urgently so that arrangements can be made for rooming and hotel block dates. Could have the meeting the Sunday before the Connect meeting or close Connect at the end of Thursday and have the Partner meeting on Friday. Or we could formally finish Connect at Thursday lunchtime and have the Partner meeting Thursday afternoon and Friday morning. Richard suggests from experience that people head for the airport at lunchtime on the last day. On Sunday, the Utah Library would be closed, so there would be a cost to open it for a Partner meeting.
- Discussion: Karen Cariani, Dan Coughlin, RIck Johnson agree with Richard's suggestion. Simeon Warner asked if Connect was fixed; could the Partner meeting occur on Thursday and shift Connect? Utah has flexibility that week. Karen Cariani: Splitting Partner meeting between two days can decrease productivity; could we concentrate into Thursday afternoon? Nabeela Jaffer wondered if Connect could happen Monday - Wednesday evening, Partner meeting on Thursday. Linda Newman suggested that a solid afternoon without breaks is not enough for a Partner meeting; not sure that a day and a half is enough. It's not just that people leave at midday, we seem to run out of time – we need as much of 2 days as we could give ourselves – want to have the Partner meeting first. Ésme Cowles agreed, suggested we start Connect on Monday, which would give that day over to travel for Connect attendees. Brian asked about workshops; if we moved Connect, would those be Monday or Tuesday? Richard said if we moved Connect, workshops would happen on Tuesday. Mark Bussey: Frontloading the Partner discussions creates opportunities for more facetime over Connect; don't want to counterprogram with workshops. Linda Newman: Partners on Monday, schedule a partner dinner on Thursday evening to wrap things up that might not be completed on Monday? Just want to make sure we have enough time to get through our business. Mike Bussey: Not all Partners will be able to travel; if we were intentional to charter any follow-up groups, we could plan on a call-in recap shortly after Connect. There was agreement that this was a good idea.
- Richard Green recap: Proposing all-day Partner meeting on Monday, workshops on Tuesday, Connect on Wednesday - Friday lunchtime, though could make some time Friday afternoon for working groups who want to take advantage of that.
- Brian McBride question: How many are we expecting? What kind of facilities do you need? Would streaming be of interest? Richard Green answers: 30-35 people in the room at Evanston, just a big square room. As to streaming, if it could be done easily and inexpensively, it might be nice for those who can't be there – audio-only would probably be fine. Ryan Steans answer: Capturing audio for 35 people speaking at different volumes is difficult. Would need multiple mic points and a single speaker back to the room. Richard Green: Question about how many people would use it if we set it up. Mark Bussey: Had call-ins in Spring, very intentional contingent on a good setup. Nabeela Jaffer: Stanford room was much smaller than Evanston. Mark Bussey: Reinforcing summary call-in event at the end to include people who may have had difficulty calling in. Question from Brian McBride: If we had confidence in the room and technology, would that be of interest? Mark Bussey: Want to ensure people can participate equally. Simeon Warner: While Alberta calling into Stanford worked well, it wasn't random remote participation case and it could be hard to manage.
- Richard Green recap: Partner meeting on Monday; we will investigate the possibility of audio dial-in but aren't sure we need it. Workshops on Tuesday, Connect Wednesday - Friday lunchtime, space available on Friday for small groups who want it. Won't make decisions on Monday; will hold a call-in shortly afterwards for all Partners and decisions will be made as part of that dial-in call when everyone has a chance to have their say. Further agreement from the group.
- Brian McBride: So far planning's going well, local committee is meeting.
- Note from RG: I've taken the liberty of inviting Brian McBride from the University of Utah to join this discussion in order that any questions about local facilities etc can be answered immediately. I've also moved this item to the top of the agenda so that he does not need to sit through the Governance discussion! Hope that's OK...
Check-in on Governance Working Group (Ryan Steans, Mark Bussey)
Wiki page with charter, notes from each meeting, etc.
Ryan Steans: Group was chartered by Steering and Partners to look at all the feedback that was provided after various models had gone out to the Samvera community. Deliverables to go out in March at Steering meeting. Already put out first deliverable, a 2 page brief.
Mark Bussey: The vision is that Steering is looking to continue its role as steward and administrator for community, but want to create a process that includes Partners.
Ryan Steans: Recently broke into several groups. Right now, those sub-groups are developing models individually. Will reconvene on 2/16 to synthesize models and adjusted calendar of deliverables for time. Used three important attributes as defined: Formal Contributions, Stable Communications// Coordination Plan, Community defined Roadmap or Plan. Each group has 3 people, Mark as liaison to Steering. Once the plan is together, released 2/26 to community for input. Current timeline: Will hold a webinar to introduce the model and release a revised proposal in March. Circulate final proposal around April. Will hold a vote in April and see where things go. Some details still getting hashed out; vote will take place with the Partners and will adopt through that organization. This model has been successful surfacing challenges and dependencies, addressing FTE, roadmaps. Carolyn Caizzi and Rosalyn Metz are co-facilitators.
Mark Bussey: While we're largely talking about proposing a new model for governance, recognize there are lots of good things about how the community is working now, but community is growing and want to ensure all members are able to contribute, collaborate.