NDSA:Membership Model: Difference between revisions

From DLF Wiki
← Older edit
Trow (talk | contribs)
298 edits
No edit summary
m 6 revisions imported: Migrate NDSA content from Library of Congress
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Decisions at Hand==
==Membership==
There was a spectrum of suggestions for how to handle membership and determine membership eligibility:
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/>


* membership fully open to all interested parties
The term of membership is for 3 years.<br/><br/>
* membership based on shared values -- interested parties promise to share the values of the NDSA and promote the mission
* 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


==Full Meeting Points of Discussion==
''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<br/><br/>


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
==Eligibility and Requirements==


===Michael Stoller's Group===
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/>
*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
*“Stakeholders”: bring the broadest possible range of participants if we want to inspire innovation


===Grotke, Chute, Kimpton, Cariani Group===
''Recommendations for eligibility and requirements:''
criteria for membership:  
* Members should have demonstrated a commitment to digital preservation.
*Institutions not individuals,
* Members should share the stated values of the Alliance.<br/><br/>
*Primarily U.S.-based, proposed potential international members as part of an affiliate program
*Open to allowing  consortia to join, as long as there is clear representation
*Demonstration of a commitment to preservation: education, technology development, participation in projects
*Application process that would state why they should join
*Suggestion that potential members be reviewed on an annual basis
*Consideration: Affiliates vs. core membership: tiered level of involvement, voting members plus strategic affiliates. The goal here being to provide a role for “smaller” affiliate institutions to participate and get benefits from the process.


===Daphne===
==Rights and Privileges==
*Open application process, any interested entity is welcome. But...clearly defined membership expectations.
**How to use logo,
**Signing on to the values statement
**Mission statement becomes the parameters by which organizations to behave
**Protect working groups from potentialy being flooded by one institution by setting a maximum number of representatives that could be sent to any one working group
**Potentially seek out alliances with trade organizations
**If you want to be a member, you have to commit


===Taylor Surface's Group===
''Recommendations for rights and privileges:''
*Should membership be exclusive? We're signed to be inclusive but the first thing we're doing is defining membership.
* Voting power for the Alliance will be distributed:
*Membership should be about a commitment to the values of the NDSA.  
** Institutions will have one vote on organizational and governance matters affecting the Alliance.
*What's the difference between a member and a participant on an action team?
** Individual participants will have effective decision-making power at the Working Group level.  
*Member gets a vote to set the agenda of the action groups. Scope of work is defined by the membership, implemented by action teams.
* 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:
*How do you become a member?
** All work products must be announced to the general membership and distributed in draft form well in advance of finalization
*Proposal to change "sponsorship" to “nomination.” Suggested LC screen members for eligibility.
** 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.
*Allow for self nomination
** Where discussion is conducted through conference calls, the conference call minutes/notes should be circulated on the mailing list.
*Proposed value for inclusion: Member document should explicitly charge members to seek and nominate other potential member institutions
* Working groups and their members will have the authority to create Action Teams
*Renewal of memberships need to be addressed in the next 3 years.  
** The work of the Action Teams will be fairly autonomous; however, a process of transparency&mdash;a &ldquo;lightweight charter&rdquo;&mdash;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.<br/><br/>


===Kris Carpenter's group===
==Outstanding Questions==
*is there a need to have a formal evaluation of applications? What is the role of applications? What does it mean to demonstrate commitment?
* How will we engage the commercial sector while avoiding predatory vendor relationships that are not consistent with the goals of the Alliance?
*Proposal: Any institution demonstrating commitment and signing the application should be sufficient.
* Do the for-profit orgs have the same status as the not-for-profit orgs?
*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.
* Who will review applications?
*Proposal to remove the revocation bullet.
* How could international organizations become affiliated with the Alliance?
*If we require specific criteria for participation, it needs to be transparent. DPC had a list of these requirements on their website.
*Remove the concept of sponsorship but encourage others to recruit members. Encourage the broadest and most inclusive set of organizations possible.
 
===Funder questions===
*Is there any issue with funders serving on working groups?  
*Should funders have their own sub-group

Latest revision as of 14:17, 11 February 2016

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?
Retrieved from "https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=NDSA:Membership_Model&oldid=1456"