https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=NDSA%3AWednesday%2C_December_21%2C_2011 2026-05-30T19:34:16Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.44.0 https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=NDSA:Wednesday,_December_21,_2011&diff=3497&oldid=prev 2016-02-11T19:18:56Z

<p>1 revision imported: Migrate NDSA content from Library of Congress</p> <table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface"> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <col class="diff-marker" /> <col class="diff-content" /> <tr class="diff-title" lang="en"> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 15:18, 11 February 2016</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="4" class="diff-notice" lang="en"><div class="mw-diff-empty">(No difference)</div> </td></tr> <!-- diff cache key wiki_production-dlfwiki_:diff:1.41:old-3496:rev-3497 --> </table>

Dlfadm https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=NDSA:Wednesday,_December_21,_2011&diff=3496&oldid=prev 2011-12-23T16:45:16Z

<p>Created page with &#039;Innovation Awards Team Meeting Minutes - 12/21/2011, 3pm In attendance: Rachel Frick, Jason Kucsma, Jennifer Ricker, Barbara Taranto, Jefferson Bailey The next call will be sch…&#039;</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>Innovation Awards Team Meeting Minutes - 12/21/2011, 3pm<br /> <br /> In attendance: Rachel Frick, Jason Kucsma, Jennifer Ricker, Barbara Taranto, Jefferson Bailey<br /> <br /> The next call will be scheduled January 12-17. On this call we will discuss the ongoing Google doc describing the awards and discuss project logistical details involving promotion, nominations, and evaluation.<br /> <br /> Project timeline:<br /> *Mid January – Coordinated plan for outreach, promotion, and solicitation of nominations will be ready by the end of January<br /> *Mid January – Detailed guidelines on the nomination criteria and who can nominate as well as the process for submitting nominations<br /> *Feb-April/May – Evaluation (and continued solicitation) of nominations<br /> *May (mid/late) – Announcement of winners<br /> *July (mid) – Awards presented at the annual NDSA partners meeting<br /> <br /> ==Call notes==<br /> <br /> Conversation regarding Awards:<br /> <br /> *Need to recognize an organizational awareness to defining “at risk” and highlighting the organizational process that goes into deciding what to save “preservation”<br /> *Awards will be more effective if they award an exemplar, someone who develops a best-practice for sustainability<br /> *Areas that people agree should be recognized: <br /> **content at-risk award (content, collection)<br /> **organization-focused award (modeling a community best practice)<br /> **student awards <br /> *Suggested that this first round of awards not get too specific (should be rewarding innovation, risk taking, modeling best practices and community behavior, programmatic changes). Keep the awards at a higher level instead of getting too specific<br /> *Awards should be described in a way so that there is wiggle room in the nomination. This will allow for a breadth of nomination. Don’t be too prescriptive<br /> *Awards need to leave nominators “room to move” and ability to nominate many types of things that demonstrate an innovative approach, show community practice, how digital preservation needs to be a core mission<br /> *Awards need a sustainability focus, emphasizing best practices, standards, behaviors, integration into core practice, budgeting, stewardship<br /> *Innovative should be underscored and broadly defined and give attention to collaboration and group (consortial) efforts.<br /> *Group agreed on award categories (done by recipient type instead of activity type):<br /> **individual: talented individuals who have shown innovation – this is why they deserve these awards, create recognition of excellence<br /> **project-based: projects that have made innovative contributions to the community<br /> **organizational-based: organizations that have helped establish inventive approaches, best practices, behaviors, procedures in digital preservation<br /> **Future stewards: broadly defined, but focused on students, educators, pedagogy<br /> <br /> *Keep nomination guidelines broad as far as descriptions &amp; justifications. Make the nominator tell us why this nominee deserves consideration.<br /> *Nominations need demonstrable information on person/project/org/student-teacher such as URL, point person, and contact information as well <br /> <br /> Future considerations: <br /> <br /> *Viability of posting nominations publicly<br /> *Ongoing promotion<br /> <br /> ==Action Items==<br /> <br /> *Jefferson will compose and share a google document with a few sentences describing the awards program and 1-3 sentences describing each award.<br /> *Team-members will suggest changes via the “insert comment” function.<br /> *Jefferson will compose nomination guidelines and add to the google doc for comment<br /> *Jefferson will compose concrete details on what nominators need to include and add to the google doc for comment<br /> *Jefferson will compose a notification for people that have been nominated and add to the google doc for comment<br /> *Jefferson will compose evaluation methods and add to the google doc for comment<br /> *Jefferson will compose promotion &amp; outreach plan and add to google doc for comment<br /> *Jefferson will firm up logistical details, including submission email address, exact details of what winners receive (eps. travel subsidy) before the next call.</div>

Jbailey