NDSA:Membership Model: Difference between revisions

From DLF Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(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
*There should be a role for international organizations
*Consortia are welcome to join as members of the NDSA. They should work to determine that their participants identify with the consortium that person represents.
*There should be a way to bring in subject-matter experts
*Membership expectations should be clearly defined


==Full Meeting Points of Discussion==
===Areas where the group did not develop consensus:===  
*Open vs. Closed Membership:
**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
**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
*The role of funding organizations in the NDSA
**Is there a conflict of interest for funders serving on working groups?
**Should funders have their own sub-group
*Participation
**There should be a maximum number of participants any one member organization can send to a single working group which should be clearly articulated.
**Working Groups should police themselves and make sure that their agendas are not being swayed
*Sponsorship
**Should not be necessary for new members – implies exchange of funds.
**Nomination of new members is acceptable if deemed necessary.
**Members should be encouraged to seek and nominate other potential participants in the NDSA as a way of expanding the NDSA
*Categories of Membership
**There should only be one category of membership
**International entities should be able to join as affiliates (a second category)
**Technology vendors should be able to join as affiliates (a second category)
*Revocation
**There should be no clause for revoking membership, it is unnecessary
**There must be clearly defined reasons for revoking membership


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.
===Grotke, Chute, Kimpton, Cariani Group===
criteria for membership:
*Institutions not individuals,
*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===
*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===
*Should membership be exclusive? We're signed to be inclusive but the first thing we're doing is defining membership.
*Membership should be about a commitment to the values of the NDSA.
*What's the difference between a member and a participant on an action team?
*Member gets a vote to set the agenda of the action groups. Scope of work is defined by the membership, implemented by action teams.
*How do you become a member?
*Proposal to change "sponsorship" to “nomination.” Suggested LC screen members for eligibility.
*Allow for self nomination
*Proposed value for inclusion: Member document should explicitly charge members to seek and nominate other potential member institutions
*Renewal of memberships need to be addressed in the next 3 years.
 
===Kris Carpenter's group===
*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: 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.
*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

Revision as of 16:30, 28 December 2010

Membership Discussion From First Meeting

The membership discussion revolved around how new member institutions could join the Alliance with the objective of recognizing both organizational and individual contributions.

Points of Consensus

  • New member organizations should share the values of the Alliance and support the mission statement to the best of their abilities
  • Member organizations should demonstrate a commitment to preservation: education, technology development, participation in projects
  • All organizations should commit to participating in the working groups of the Alliance
  • Learning by doing should be encouraged, especially for smaller organizations
  • There should be a role for international organizations
  • Consortia are welcome to join as members of the NDSA. They should work to determine that their participants identify with the consortium that person represents.
  • There should be a way to bring in subject-matter experts
  • Membership expectations should be clearly defined

Areas where the group did not develop consensus:

  • Open vs. Closed Membership:
    • 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
    • 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
  • The role of funding organizations in the NDSA
    • Is there a conflict of interest for funders serving on working groups?
    • Should funders have their own sub-group
  • Participation
    • There should be a maximum number of participants any one member organization can send to a single working group which should be clearly articulated.
    • Working Groups should police themselves and make sure that their agendas are not being swayed
  • Sponsorship
    • Should not be necessary for new members – implies exchange of funds.
    • Nomination of new members is acceptable if deemed necessary.
    • Members should be encouraged to seek and nominate other potential participants in the NDSA as a way of expanding the NDSA
  • Categories of Membership
    • There should only be one category of membership
    • International entities should be able to join as affiliates (a second category)
    • Technology vendors should be able to join as affiliates (a second category)
  • Revocation
    • There should be no clause for revoking membership, it is unnecessary
    • There must be clearly defined reasons for revoking membership

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.

The remaining discussion focused on

  • The NDSA as a working Alliance – and the challenges of accomplishing work with a very large membership base
  • Application as declaration of interest
  • Keeping the governance of the NDSA light – and how that might influence membership eligibility decisions by this group.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.diglib.org/index.php?title=NDSA:Membership_Model&oldid=1455"