|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''NDSA MEMBERSHIP MODEL - revised 1/6/11'''
| | Given the extensive discussion over membership at the meeting, the lack of wiki talk, or public e-mail exchange on this issue is surprising. I wonder if we |
|
| |
|
| This version of the Membership Model was crafted after reviewing minutes of the meeting and trying to consolidate all of the concerns and wishes expressed at the December workshop.
| |
|
| |
|
| We propose what we believe is a workable model that will address the desires of many to be open, inclusive and diverse. We have looked to the membership information that DPC provides for inspiration about how to be inclusive of commercial/IT vendors and international affiliates (see DPC Prospectus linked from here: http://www.dpconline.org/about/join), and have borrowed some of their language with their permission.
| |
|
| |
|
| We heard at the workshop some of the positives of going with this approach:
| | At the last meeting, although discussion groups didn't come to consensus, there were a number of specific suggestions that weren't fully captured in the notes, and aspects of the original proposal that did did not result in any objection: |
|
| |
|
| *“NDSA is not a club” – speaks to the inclusiveness we encourage in our values statement.
| | - allowing action groups to recruit participants from non-members |
| *Open, broad membership is a benefit: offers a variety of experiences, knowledge. Access to high-tech and international members benefits us all. Brings in stakeholders that could inspire innovation.
| | - committing to transparency |
| *Institutions of any size may participate.
| |
| *Without need to have CC or a membership committee review and vote on new members, members could join at any time (LC would process applications as they come in).
| |
| *Encourages members to recruit new members, to think broadly about who might be encouraged to join.
| |
| *This model allows for us to develop clearly stated “we share common values across boundaries” with international organizations and high tech companies and others who may not meet full eligibility requirements.
| |
| *Brings in subject matter experts and specialists that would otherwise not be able to participate “officially.”
| |
| *No perception of favoritism because we aren’t inviting or sponsoring others to join. Membership information on the NDSA site will clearly define what is “a demonstrated commitment to digital preservation.”
| |
| *Clearly defines what the eligibility for international and commercial vendors memberships and expectations for membership.
| |
| | |
| Although there was some discussion at the December meeting about a formal application review and a process for that, we are at this point recommending that we keep it lightweight and have the Secretariat review and process applications, particularly with this more open model where we would allow all to apply. This model will also allow us to move forward now and we can review it in 3 years.
| |
| | |
| | |
| =Membership=
| |
| As an initiative of the Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP), the Alliance is open to United States 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. International organizations are also welcome to join as affiliate members.
| |
| | |
| ==Term of Membership==
| |
| The first term of membership expires December 31, 2013. The term of Membership will be for three (3) years thereafter.
| |
| | |
| ==Recommendations for Membership==
| |
| *Membership will be at the institutional level, but participation on Working Groups is open to one or more individual participants at the institution.
| |
| *Applications are welcome from consortia, given that there is a clear representative identified to participate from the consortia.
| |
| *Applications are welcome from commercial companies and IT vendors, given that these members agree to the values of the NDSA and understand that the NDSA requires all members to follow rules of neutrality. ''[NOTE: We recommend using language modeled after the DPC's information for Commercial and IT vendors in our membership materials, and to have language that encourages technically-oriented rather than sales staff serve as NDSA participants.]''
| |
| *International Organizations will have Affiliate status rather than full membership. (See below for different rights and privileges)
| |
| *Membership should be open and the process by which new members can join is though:
| |
| **Application process via online form (see current form: http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/ndsaform/index.php)
| |
| **Review and Processing by Secretariat
| |
| | |
| ==Eligibility==
| |
| | |
| *Members should have demonstrated a commitment to digital preservation.
| |
| *Members should share the stated values of the Alliance.
| |
| *Members should agree to maintain vendor neutrality.
| |
| *Members should agree to participate in one or more working groups.
| |
| | |
| ==Rights and Privileges==
| |
| | |
| '''Full Members'''
| |
| *Members will have one vote on organizational and governance matters affecting the Alliance, e.g. voting for coordinating committee nominees, regardless of how many participants they contribute to the NDSA.
| |
| *Individual participants will have effective decision-making power at the Working Group level, e.g. deciding on work plans and work products.
| |
| *Members may send representatives to participate in NDSA annual meetings.
| |
| | |
| '''Affiliate Members'''
| |
| *Member organizations may send representatives to participate in the annual meetings of the NDSA, but do not have voting rights.
| |
| *Members may participate in the work of the Working Groups at the Action Team level.
| |
Given the extensive discussion over membership at the meeting, the lack of wiki talk, or public e-mail exchange on this issue is surprising. I wonder if we
At the last meeting, although discussion groups didn't come to consensus, there were a number of specific suggestions that weren't fully captured in the notes, and aspects of the original proposal that did did not result in any objection:
- allowing action groups to recruit participants from non-members
- committing to transparency