Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendees were asked to have table discussions and report out their answers to the following questions:

  1. What did you hear today?
  2. What do you have concerns about?
  3. What has inspired you?
  4. What unanswered questions do you have?
TABLE 1
  • Terminology seems to matter–calling efforts projects, programs or products--programs might be better
  • DuraSpace did not bring concerns about DSpace and Fedora sustainability to the community soon enough
  • New Fedora needs to be backwards compatible and easy to migrate forward
  • Everyone is keen to do open source until it gets hard
  • Ownership; DuraSpace seems to be the place to do it
  • Inspired that DuraSpace took DSpace and Fedora
  • Lyrasis is positioning itself as a product; DuraSpace could do the same
  • Curiosity about additional investment in Fedora
  • What kind of governance model would enable better commitment going forward; perhaps a governance roadmap

Michele--would like to see a community model for governance going forward for DSpace and Fedora coming out of this meeting; we are bringing these issues to the community now--we have time. Neither program is in jeopardy right now.

TABLE 2 (Dean)
  • Sponsorship program solicitation should be more explicit about indicating where funds go–DSpace, Fedora or VIVO
  • Need to engage those who cannot afford to pony up
  • A multiple stack 20K per initiative commitment is a problem for institutions
TABLE 3 (Tufts)
  • funding and return on investment are good arguments but don't necessarily convey to others in institutions
  • There is value in having DuraSpace foster DSpace and Fedora
  • Governance is needed to allow for a greater voice from the community
  • I respect tremendously that people came together to make a board for Fedora Futures
  • Governance
  • Fedora Futures has a self-appointed steering committee made up of folks with more skin in the game; governance is of great concern
  • Most interested in the process of soliciting input towards decision-making
  • Governance ensures that information flow is robust and representative
  • Hathi Trust governance model; had a constitutional convention that came up with a voting scheme
  • DLF and CLR came together to form one organization; 9 people were nominated by the community as a board
  • How to ensure that there is robust input from people who have more or less resources, and have been using Fedora for a long time and don't have many technical resources. Takes outreach to gain feedback from those stakeholders
  • Glad to have financial understanding of where DuraSpace fits
  • Good reminder of acceleration of creation of digital data and content; vetting mechanisms for what gets preserved?
  • What's next?
  • Governance question
  • Stakeholder engagement; more information about here's how you participate
TABLE 4
  • DSpace and Fedora communities can't stand still
  • Risk factors in community efforts are that there can be too much reliance on one person
  • Tranparency appreciated
  • Can we expand marketing (use cases) and user acquisition efforts--DSpace and OJS?
  • Communtiy of users might be stilted
  • Cases--slide deck about some of these issues today; meta issues that have inspired us today
  • Itemized approach or bundled approach
  • Can we approach other sectors of the non-profit community?
TABLE 5
  • Not enough university librarian/dean level administrators here
  • Financial concerns about low percentage rate of sponsor contributions (free riders)
  • If this is a Dspace and Fedora community effort, can you lump both "Futures" together as a community concern instead of focus on individual platforms?
  • DSpace is left out–more excitement about Fedora; concern about neglect there
  • Institutions who are contributing large amounts of resources may be fatigued; need to expand reach for fundraising
  • The preservation stack in compelling
  • Tyler comment about actual $$ being spent is relatively small; how do we boost contributions?
  • How can we connect DuraSpace value proposition to higher education in general; if it's puzzling in this room then it is doubly hard for university administrators to understand

Jonathan--How sponsorship $$ are connected to efforts is tallied by what platform you are using; if both then it is split; that's where the numbers are coming from about $$ for yearly development of the software. Those of us not using anything $$ goes into general fund.

To date DSpace Futures has been driven by DuraSpace to find out what the issues are and what use cases are not being fulfilled; growing out of that were a series of issues about what had the most traction; API, Hydra and metadata improvement. Little traction so far from the DSpace community. Our question is why is there no traction? Not communicated enough or no interest?

TABLE 6
  • Surprised that both projects are in the red
  • How do we get the word out on campus?
  • "Long term access" are better words than "preservation"
  • Need a funding overview strategy for the whole preservation stack
  • Both projects are mature and the development is diffused; may not be a good model; maybe Kuali model would work better
  • Governance and contribution--how do you develop a coherent road map
  • Need a common pitch to provosts and administrators
TABLE 7
  • Perhaps there really is a crisis for the community if DSpace and Fedora are underfunded
  • "It's one thing to be in a train wreck and quite another to be driving the train; this is a community crisis"
  • It's easier to see physical backlog then a digital backlog
  • We need IT partners; willing academic partners in research data preservation
  • Need a migration path between DSpace and Fedora? Fedora is a better choice; shift forward
  • Armaggedon in the stacks?
  • Appreciated the communications around Digital preservation value proposition; that conversation is happening everywhere; if we could share going forward it would be helpful
  • We should all appreciate the urgency of the digital preservation problem
TABLE 8
  •  We need "A louder roadmap" going forward
MISCELLANEOUS FEEDBACK
  • we knew this day was coming – funded thru grants, at some point something needs to change – this is it – the point where we have to step up 

  • urgency of the digital dark age – physical backlog of books vs. a digital backlog – digital resources are vulnerable
  • 70% or organizations resources are dedicated on physical objects
  • only 10% of our adopter community that are sponsoring – needs to be higher
  • how do we make sure non-sponsors are included in community
  • multiple 20K sponsorship needs
  • deficits of DSpace and Fedora are a concern, can they be resolved? 
  • Same/usual suspects that contribute – fatigue – need to expand contributions (financial and inkind) by other institutions
  • acceleration of the creation of dig data – is there a space to consider policy workflow layers so we don’t all re-create
  • appreciate DuraSpace's openess and transparency
  • we are not dealing with digital humanities we are dealing with humanities that are digital
  • more ways to participate
  • more sharing of knowledge and expertise
  • need to make the invisable visable
  • need a shared value proposition for selling investment now to leadership

 


  • No labels