| draft next-gen ARK resolver funding proposal identifying partners |
| JH: Mellon will be interested in sustainability, should be community based BM: same here SC: what you shared is a prospectus, useful for getting interest and next, funder would want more detail JH: agreed B: last few fed grants have been pretty reasonable; another question, F&A cut taken off the top SC: 0-15% F&A JH: might be useful to have another institution doing dev work KE: only senior architect knowledge has to come from CDL KW: would one option be to have a AITO org do the work? otherwise what's the incentive to participate? KE: no problem if an AITO org wants to do the work KW: what if an org had a person we wanted to work on it SC: have active Mellon grant; I know Josh G very well SC: JHU started an open source office which may be useful in this; you may need an open source community manager/management strategy; Josh is very interested; lyrasis might be a good partner KE: we've been told that funders prefer discrete, well-defined work proposals SC: I'd be happy to take this forward BM: when University of Utah goes to foundations, we have to go through channels; UU would have latency of some months KW: our situation is similar to JHU, not talking about in kind, but it needs to solve an org problem SC: Moore foundation might be good MP: we could definitely help out, but our experience is with the feds, eg, IMLS; I could run the prospectus by them SC: we need to be aware of cycle deadlines JH: the EOSC (European Open Science Cloud) has an architecture working group with a PID policy open for comments: https://zenodo.org/record/3780423#.Xr1SNBP0lHQ |