LG and SG members:
Paul Albert , Ann Beynon, Tom Cramer, Mike Conlon, Anna Guillaumet, Doug Hahn, Christian Hauschke, Violeta Ilik, Muhammed Javed, Mark Newton, Julia Trimmer, Terrie Wheeler, Joe Zucca
Erin Tripp, Andrew Woods
DJ Lee, Ginny Pannabecker, Jean Rainwater, Hannah Sommers, Robert Cartolano, Federico Ferrario, Alex Viggio
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android:
(New call-in numbers were corrected on 5/10/2018)
Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +16468769923,,9358074182# or +16699006833,,9358074182#
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 646 876 9923 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 408 638 0968 or +1 408 638 0986 or +1 646 558 8665
Meeting ID: 935 807 4182
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/cex8G1kjQ
- Review agenda: Julia, 5 minutes
- Steering Committee nominations (procedure outlined here) Julia/round-table discussion, 30 minutes.
- Background on the purpose of Steering vs. Leadership (see the Leadership Group Processes page for more info).
- If necessary, would this structure work with a smaller Steering Group (8 people)?
- If not, how do we proceed?
- Update on technical initiatives/roadmap process. Mike, 5 minutes.
- Survey from the Governance action planning group. Julia, 2 minutes.
- Future agenda items: we need to hear your most burning questions for the LG. Julia/Mike/short round-table discussion, 20 minutes
- Steering Committee nominations
- Steering group is a subset of the Leadership group.
- Thus far, we've only gotten one nomination for the Steering Group
- Should we go with a smaller Steering group?
- Paul: maybe we could ask additional people to participate. Some people whose terms expired are no longer on the Steering group. I think we should recruit people.
- Ann: I'm okay with a smaller group.
- Mike: I like the idea of reaching out to people individually and don't kill ourselves trying getting to 10.
- Anna: maybe it's better having fewer people than more people.
- Violeta: I'm in favor of a smaller group. My understanding is Steering group is really operational.
- Christian: 8 would be a good size depending on if they can work together. Maybe it would to ask again in a couple months. For example, right now, I have no time. But maybe in 2-3 months.
- Javed: I like the idea of having a larger group. We should contact the do-ers in our community.
- Andrew: I don't think we should hold things up over the number of people.
- Technical initiatives and roadmap process
- We agreed to have a group score the initiatives on impact and effort.
- We have 6 groups that have agreed to score: Andrew, Mike, Weill, Columbia, Clarivate, Sigma.
- We will review discrepant scoring.
- Christian: I sent an email asking for feedback on certain initiatives? Mike: I have included those in my ratings.
- Mike: One of the points of this exercise is to try to generate commitment.... There will be some effort to lump together similar efforts.
- Ana: I think how VIVO looks is very important.
- Action planning groups
- Goal: survey to inform the work of the action planning group.
- Julia: We will send a survey to the community. This should be coming up in the next several weeks.
- Future agenda items
- Andrew: I see different initiatives: VIVO core, Product Evolution, and Research Intelligence. We could start better using Slack to facilitate communication.
- Erin: we have a report on the ResearchGraph pilot. We should include this as an agenda item.
- Javed: I see the groups as being VIVO Core and Product Evolution. We still don't know how we bring back individual institutions into Core. There's not a lot of interest in moving code commits back into VIVO core. That's my concern.
- Violeta: I was thinking the Leadership group could have an open call with community members, so that we can synchronize parallel efforts.... Also, is the Leadership group deciding about the Conference? Julia: I think we'll have an update about that soon. Mike: the Conference Team decides. We'll follow up. We will follow up.
- Christian: I agree with Javed. There are a lot of solutions from single institutions, and we never hear about their code. I have no idea how to do this. We need to figure out what everyone is working on. We need to communicate our development projects in a transparent way. I would also like to talk about funding opportunities.
- Doug: I agree with what I've heard.
- Ana: I like the idea of having specialized groups. This way we can invite more people to collaborate.
- Mike: I second the idea of a community forum. I'm comfortable seeing a lot of people doing a lot of things. People will choose to participate in efforts they see as most valuable. We will have parallel effort but I hope they will be aligned.... Finally, there will be memoranda updates starting in September. Our goal is to have a revised MOU. Our goal is to have something in place by end of 2018. I'm grateful to Duraspace for putting us in a place where we can discuss this. If you're interested in this work, let me know.
- Tom: we have done a lot of good foundational work. I would like to see us get some resolution and convergence on those.
- Ann: I like the idea of having a wider forum. A colleague of mine wanted to be a guest speaker. We have a new leader of the Converis business; we're immersing her in the VIVO world. Violeta: I like that idea.
- Paul: I like the idea of treating VIVO more as a set of components rather than a single monolith. Mike: I agree. Positioning the conversation as an ecosystem type discussion might allow us to better see alignment.
- Tom: Stanford is interested in research intelligence. We're opting to go to cloud-based solution (AWS) - Neptune. We're doing a VIVO pattern but we're not using much of the existing VIVO codebase. We haven't found an obvious place to report out our progress. How should we share? Violeta: what about another Slack channel? mike: for most of us a periodic update would be helpful.
- Andrew: I've heard about an interest in re-envision VIVO's role. It would be a shame if Stanford does good work and Stanford doesn't collaborate with this group.