NDSA:Membership Model - Revision history

Dlfadm: 6 revisions imported: Migrate NDSA content from Library of Congress

2016-02-11T19:17:53Z

6 revisions imported: Migrate NDSA content from Library of Congress

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:17, 11 February 2016
(No difference)

Dlfadm: 1 revision imported: Migrate NDSA content from Library of Congress

2016-02-11T19:17:52Z

1 revision imported: Migrate NDSA content from Library of Congress

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==Membership Discussion From First Meeting==
+==Membership==
-The membership discussion revolved around how new member institutions could join the Alliance with the objective of recognizing both organizational and individual contributions.
+As an outgrowth of the Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP), the Alliance is open to government agencies, educational institutions, non-profit organizations and business with commitments and activities in the areas of collecting, preserving, or ensuring long-term access to digital content.<br/><br/>
-===Points of Consensus===
+The term of membership is for 3 years.<br/><br/>
-===Areas where the group did not develop consensus:===
+''Recommendations for membership:''
-*Open vs. Closed Membership:
+* Membership will be at the institutional level, but participation on Working Groups is open to one or more individuals at the institution.
-**membership fully open to all interested parties
+* Membership should be open and the process by which new members can join is though:
-**membership based on shared values -- interested parties promise to share the values of the NDSA and promote the mission
+** Application process; then sponsorship by an organization w/in the NDSA
-**partially restricted membership --all potential members to be vetted by the Coordinating
+** Review and approval by consensus of the membership subcommittee
-**Committee and/or the Secretariat
+* Membership may be revoked by a majority vote of member institutions<br/><br/>
-Note: it was commented on that renewal of membership wasn't addressed in these initial documents. This was not seen as problematic at this point, however, it was mentioned that renewal of memberships will need to be addressed in the next 3 years before the current membership terms expire.
+==Eligibility and Requirements==
-===The remaining discussion focused on===
+The only responsibility of membership is participation. Members participate in one or more working group by making a sustained contribution to the work of the group for the benefit of the Alliance.<br/><br/>
-*The NDSA as a working Alliance – and the challenges of accomplishing work with a very large membership base
-*Application as declaration of interest
+''Recommendations for eligibility and requirements:''
-*Keeping the governance of the NDSA light – and how that might influence membership eligibility decisions by this group.
+* Members should have demonstrated a commitment to digital preservation.

Trow: Organized comments around points of consensus and issues to take up

2010-12-28T20:30:06Z

Organized comments around points of consensus and issues to take up

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==Decisions at Hand==
+==Membership Discussion From First Meeting==
-There was a spectrum of suggestions for how to handle membership and determine membership eligibility:
+The membership discussion revolved around how new member institutions could join the Alliance with the objective of recognizing both organizational and individual contributions.
-* membership fully open to all interested parties
+===Points of Consensus===
-* membership based on shared values -- interested parties promise to share the values of the NDSA and promote the mission
+*New member organizations should share the values of the Alliance and support the mission statement to the best of their abilities
-* partially restricted membership --all potential members to be vetted by the Coordinating Committee and/or the Secretariat
+*Member organizations should demonstrate a commitment to preservation: education, technology development, participation in projects
-* restricted membership -- technology vendors are not eligible for membership
+*All organizations should commit to participating in the working groups of the Alliance
-<br/><br/>
+*Learning by doing should be encouraged, especially for smaller organizations
-==Full Meeting Points of Discussion==
+===Areas where the group did not develop consensus:===
-Conversation focused on what the membership commitment represented, what organizations should be there, and what's the landscape look like levels of commitment and the ground rules content, service and/or technology.
+Note: it was commented on that renewal of membership wasn't addressed in these initial documents. This was not seen as problematic at this point, however, it was mentioned that renewal of memberships will need to be addressed in the next 3 years before the current membership terms expire.
-===Michael Stoller's Group===
+===The remaining discussion focused on===
-*Suggested the fundamental current commitment is to the “conversation,” though see this as an evolving organization. Committing to the mission of the organization, with the ground rules being bringing particular “expertise” to the table
+*The NDSA as a working Alliance – and the challenges of accomplishing work with a very large membership base
-*“Stakeholders”: bring the broadest possible range of participants if we want to inspire innovation
+*Application as declaration of interest
+*Keeping the governance of the NDSA light – and how that might influence membership eligibility decisions by this group.

Bhow: /* Decisions at Hand */

2010-12-22T15:38:31Z

Decisions at Hand

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:38, 22 December 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:
	* partially restricted membership --all potential members to be vetted by the Coordinating Committee and/or the Secretariat		* partially restricted membership --all potential members to be vetted by the Coordinating Committee and/or the Secretariat
	* restricted membership -- technology vendors are not eligible for membership		* restricted membership -- technology vendors are not eligible for membership
			<br/><br/>

	==Full Meeting Points of Discussion==		==Full Meeting Points of Discussion==

Bhow: /* Full Meeting Points of Discussion */

2010-12-22T15:38:05Z

Full Meeting Points of Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:38, 22 December 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:
	==Full Meeting Points of Discussion==		==Full Meeting Points of Discussion==

	~~conversation~~ focused on what the membership commitment represented, what organizations should be there, and what's the landscape look like levels of commitment and the ground rules content, service and/or technology		Conversation focused on what the membership commitment represented, what organizations should be there, and what's the landscape look like levels of commitment and the ground rules content, service and/or technology.

	===Michael Stoller's Group===		===Michael Stoller's Group===

Trow at 21:29, 21 December 2010

2010-12-21T21:29:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 21 December 2010
Line 48:		Line 48:
	*is there a need to have a formal evaluation of applications? What is the role of applications? What does it mean to demonstrate commitment?		*is there a need to have a formal evaluation of applications? What is the role of applications? What does it mean to demonstrate commitment?
	*Proposal: Any institution demonstrating commitment and signing the application should be sufficient.		*Proposal: Any institution demonstrating commitment and signing the application should be sufficient.
	*Proposal: No measures to differentiate membership based on organizational structure except for the exception of international entities who ~~ould~~ be engaged through an “affiliate” structure.		*Proposal: No measures to differentiate membership based on organizational structure except for the exception of international entities who would be engaged through an “affiliate” structure.
	*Proposal to remove the revocation bullet.		*Proposal to remove the revocation bullet.
	*If we require specific criteria for participation, it needs to be transparent. DPC had a list of these requirements on their website.		*If we require specific criteria for participation, it needs to be transparent. DPC had a list of these requirements on their website.

Trow: Put up a draft of Butch's notes from the discussion of the membership model at the meeting

2010-12-21T21:29:07Z

Put up a draft of Butch's notes from the discussion of the membership model at the meeting

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 There was a spectrum of suggestions for how to handle membership and determine membership eligibility:
@@ Line 5: / Line 6: @@
 * partially restricted membership --all potential members to be vetted by the Coordinating Committee and/or the Secretariat
 * restricted membership -- technology vendors are not eligible for membership

Mgal: Created page with 'There was a spectrum of suggestions for how to handle membership and determine membership eligibility: * membership fully open to all interested parties * membership based on s…'

2010-12-21T21:10:01Z

Created page with 'There was a spectrum of suggestions for how to handle membership and determine membership eligibility: * membership fully open to all interested parties * membership based on s…'

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==Membership==
+There was a spectrum of suggestions for how to handle membership and determine membership eligibility:
-The term of membership is for 3 years.<br/><br/>
+* membership fully open to all interested parties
+* membership based on shared values -- interested parties promise to share the values of the NDSA and promote the mission
-''Recommendations for membership:''
+* partially restricted membership --all potential members to be vetted by the Coordinating Committee and/or the Secretariat
-* Membership will be at the institutional level, but participation on Working Groups is open to one or more individuals at the institution.
+* restricted membership -- technology vendors are not eligible for membership

Bhow: Created page with '==Membership== As an outgrowth of the Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP), the Alliance is open to government agenci…'

2010-12-21T16:19:37Z

Created page with '==Membership== As an outgrowth of the Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP), the Alliance is open to government agenci…'

New page

==Membership==
As an outgrowth of the Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP), the Alliance is open to government agencies, educational institutions, non-profit organizations and business with commitments and activities in the areas of collecting, preserving, or ensuring long-term access to digital content. 

The term of membership is for 3 years. 

''Recommendations for membership:''
* Membership will be at the institutional level, but participation on Working Groups is open to one or more individuals at the institution.
* Membership should be open and the process by which new members can join is though:
** Application process; then sponsorship by an organization w/in the NDSA
** Review and approval by consensus of the membership subcommittee
* Membership may be revoked by a majority vote of member institutions 

==Eligibility and Requirements==

The only responsibility of membership is participation. Members participate in one or more working group by making a sustained contribution to the work of the group for the benefit of the Alliance. 

''Recommendations for eligibility and requirements:''
* Members should have demonstrated a commitment to digital preservation.
* Members should share the stated values of the Alliance. 

==Rights and Privileges==

''Recommendations for rights and privileges:''
* Voting power for the Alliance will be distributed:
** Institutions will have one vote on organizational and governance matters affecting the Alliance.
** Individual participants will have effective decision-making power at the Working Group level.
* Working Groups (and Action Teams) can produce official work products and decide on work plans and work products autonomously, within their scope and provided that they do so in a manner transparent to the membership:
** All work products must be announced to the general membership and distributed in draft form well in advance of finalization
** Written discussion related to work product or plans should be conducted on mailing lists that are archived and open to review by the general membership.
** Where discussion is conducted through conference calls, the conference call minutes/notes should be circulated on the mailing list.
* Working groups and their members will have the authority to create Action Teams
** The work of the Action Teams will be fairly autonomous; however, a process of transparency—a “lightweight charter”—should be created to inform the Working Group members of what work is going on.
** Action Teams should report back to the Working Group on a semi-regular basis about the work they are doing.
** Action Teams could be voted on by the main working group to become more formal if the work was something that was highly valued by the community. 

==Outstanding Questions==
* How will we engage the commercial sector while avoiding predatory vendor relationships that are not consistent with the goals of the Alliance?
* Do the for-profit orgs have the same status as the not-for-profit orgs?
* Who will review applications?
* How could international organizations become affiliated with the Alliance?