Page tree

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.







15 min


  • Welcome
  • Thank you to meeting note-taker
  • Departing and new members
Kristi Park
215 min

DSpace Development Report

Update on the current status of DSpace 7 development

  • Reminder of how we got here (See "Milestones" in DSpace Release 7.0 Status) & Prioritization of 7.x features
  • 7.1 Release Status (Due Nov 1)
    • Numerous Bug fixes, accessibility fixes & other minor improvements
    • 7 likely new features (4.5 community-contributed, 2.5 funded)
      1. Item Versioning (high priority, funded)
      2. (tick) Collection Harvesting via OAI-PMH (high priority, funded)
      3. Request a Copy (high priority, 1/2 funded, 1/2 community-contributed)
      4. (tick) Import Entities via Simple Archive Format (SAF) (medium-low priority, community-contributed)
      5. Import OpenAIRE funders as Entities (unranked, community-contributed)
      6. IIIF Support (unranked, community-contributed)
      7. Simplify creating Entity using Collections for each Entity Type (unranked, port from DSpace-CRIS, mostly community-contributed)

Tim Donohue

35 min

DSpace Community Advisory Team report

  • Update on DCAT activities
Maureen Walsh
45 minWorking and Interest Group Reports

Brief updates/Q&A from Working and Interest Group representatives.


Governance Working Group (wiki link)
View file
nameGovernanceWG-report-October 2021.pdf
Product Visioning Working Group (wiki link)
View file
Marketing Interest Group (wiki link)

Kristi Park (chair, Governance Working Group)

Scott Hanrath (chair, Product Visioning Working Group)

Jenn Bielewski (chair, Marketing Interest Group)

515 min

Financial and Fundraising Report

  • Financial report (FY2021 and August 2021 reports shared in email)

End of FY20-21 Overall: Performed slightly better than budgeted

      • Budgeted for $ 12k investment; actual $ 8k
      • Overall net assets: $ 16,396

Summary of 7.0 Paid Development Costs

      • $ 317,427 overall 7.0 development (Beta 1-5 and 7.0); over 2 fiscal years
      • $ 163,227 fund-raised (over 2 fiscal years)


        • $ 8,299 in net assets as of Aug 31
        • Not yet using LYRASIS line of credit

Laurie Arp, Kristi Park

615 minElections process and timeline
  • Report on process and timeline of Leadership election
  • Report on process and timeline of Steering Group and Chair elections
  • Reference: DSpace Leadership Group
  • Open positions to be considered in the new year
    • 28 Bronze members =  elections for 3 seats  (1 seat for every 8 )
    • 12 Silver members =  elections for 3 (1 seat for every 4)
    • 10 Gold =  all have seats in governance
    • 3 Platinum =  all have seats in governance
    • 2 community-at-large seats for DSpace Community participants (non-members)
    • Other ex officio participants
Michele Mennielli
750 min

DSpace Value Proposition

Discuss and gather feedback from Leaders on the value proposition for DSpace, as a means to seed discussion and work by the Membership Engagement Group and related groups in our efforts to recruit new users and members.

Leaders will break into 4 randomly assigned groups.

We will take 25 minutes for breakout discussions and then return for 20 minutes to report out and discuss with the whole group.

Guide for breakout discussions:

  • Record group members in the notes document.
  • Identify reporter to report highlights of the discussion out to the larger group.
  • Each group will discuss the following topics/questions and report back to the full group:
      • What is the DSpace value proposition for your institution? What are the most important reasons your institution uses DSpace?
      • Which parts of the value proposition do you think are most unique to DSpace (versus true of all repository platforms)?
      • What do you think would be the most compelling arguments for DSpace membership targeted at (a) library administrators (b) repository managers (c) software developers / technology folks or (d) other audiences?
      • Who at your institution makes decisions about (a) which platforms to use and (b) where to devote financial resources to for support of open source/open access?

Breakout #1 notes

Breakout #2 notes

Breakout #3 notes

Breakout #4 notes

Kristi Park, all
95 minAny other business, as time allows


Welcomes and departures

  • Paolo Mangiafico replaced by Tim McGeary (Duke)
  • Kirsty Lingstadt departed University of Edinburgh

DSpace development report (Tim)

  • 7.1 release due out Nov. 1
    • New features are in the agenda, 2 complete, 5 in progress.
    • 4.5 are community-contributed, meaning no cost to DSpace. These can come in out of priority order.
    • 2.5 are funded development (high priority only).
    • Features at the bottom list are most likely to be left off (6, 7).
  • It's encouraging to see so much in the way of community contributions. More community than funded development this cycle. Allows development to move more quickly.
  • See also DSpace 7 release status & Prioritization of 7.x features for complete information on features.
  • Steering has agreed to fund DSpace 7.2. 7.3 still under consideration.
  • DSpace 7 demo site updates frequently, will be on 7.1 on Nov. 1.
  • We do not have a list of DSpace 7 instances in production, but plenty of traffic on lists and slack.
  • 7.2/7.3 discussion: community contributors do need some support from service providers. Increased community contributions can extend timeline for funded development. Also need to give service providers time to plan and schedule resources for additional funded development.
  • 6.4 update: still in progress. Relies on volunteers, who haven't been able to contribute much lately.

DCAT report (Maureen)

  • Working on user documentation to complement technical documentation for end users, repository managers.
  • Documentation sprint: Nov. 15-28
  • Sprint page
  • Anyone welcome to help. Have some people willing to work in other languages (French), welcome more.
  • Location: DSpace wiki; Maureen will discuss with Tim.

Working and interest group reports

  • Governance working group report (Kristi)
    • Has not met since early March, after completing a lot of work early in the year.
    • Wiki pages on governance should be more complete and up to date.
    • Will review some of the orientation documents for new leaders (Kristi working with Laurie).
    • Question from Kristi (may be for steering): Is there a need for this group to continue beyond 2021?
  • Product visioning working group report (Scott)
    • Expect a report in the next couple of months.
    • Received an additional user group survey response.
    • Have identified three high level themes but still putting information together.
  • Marketing interest group report (no formal report)
  • Financial and fundraising report (Laurie, Kristi)
    • Financial report (Laurie)
      • EOY and YTD reports sent out.
      • Only spent $8000 of $12000 expected to spend from reserves.
      • Did not need to use line of credit.
      • Spent less than expected on 7.1.
      • Approved $63000 for 7.2.
      • TDL and Lyrasis paid for accessibility study.
    • Fundraising (Kristi)
      • Lyrasis has offered $25000 matching opportunity. Applies to any new money, new memberships or contributions, including SCOSS. Not clear on membership upgrades but must be for current fiscal year (Laurie will check).
      • SCOSS
        • Opportunity to generate new memberships and funds.
        • Announcement in late September (with arXiv, Redalyc/AmeliCA)
        • We're expected to help; still determining how we will.
        • SCOSS board solicits contributions from their funders.
        • Goal: $663000 euros in order to fund 2 positions (software developer, community manager).
        • Laurie, Mic, Kristi will be on close contact with SCOSS.
        • We will work through existing membership engagement group.
        • SCOSS will also likely invite us to participate in fundraising activities/opportunities, possibly without much lead time. Would be good to have some willing people ready. Will have materials already prepared.
        • Expectations regarding updates on progress: monthly meetings, tracking spreadsheet.
        • Pledges go straight to Lyrasis, not through SCOSS. We will know who it's coming from.
        • SCOSS has raised >3M euros over last two cycles, so expect it to be beneficial.
      • If interested in member recruitment or in presenting, let Kristi know.
      • For other ideas on fundraising / diversifying income - indicate interest to Kristi. Will work closely with Laurie and Robert.
        • Lieven suggest smaller donations through GitHub. Laurie is investigating.

Elections process and timeline (Michele)

  • This is final meeting of this leadership group before election.
  • Deadline for nominations was 11 Oct but extended to 17 Oct.
  • 13 nominations.
  • Expect election for silver (4 nominations, 3 seats)
  • Still missing some gold member representation (7 of 10).
  • No bronze nominations. Feel free to reach out to bronze members to encourage nominations - Michele will share list.
  • Need to keep this moving in order to form steering group.
  • Expect elections to last 7-10 days.
  • Want everything in place end of Oct in order to have first meeting in Nov.
  • Barbara asks about working and interest group membership, particularly those with work in progress. Kristi: expect that people may continue; there are not strict rules that participants be part of the leadership group.
  • Transitions on steering - 3 people rotating off. Will be a job for new leadership group. Kristi's term as chair is also ending.

DSpace value proposition discussion (notes linked in agenda)

  • Value proposition and unique to DSpace (first two questions):
    • Group 4: Options used to be limited. Open source, community cohesiveness. Availability of service providers. Ease of integration with other systems. History, number of installations. Local DSpace committer helps one institution. Alignment with values. Apparent revitalization of committer community. New API looks really good. Comparatively easy to run. Good governance. Global user base. Strong national and regional groups. Contributing to equity on a global scale.
    • Group 2: members have been using DSpace for a long time - best available at the time, and obvious choice. Vibrant community. The choice might be more difficult now. Service providers very important. Global community. Full featured platform. Very good APIs help with integration. Open source.
    • Group 1: Same as much of above. "It works," well tested, staying power. Inclusive global community. Willingness to collaborate (COAR, OpenAIRE, etc.). Registered service provider network and their contributions to community. Trusted, tested technology that has lasted (and develops/improves). Stability.
    • Group 3: Same as much of above. Stability. Ready to use but also flexible. Value proposition can change over time for a member - eg features matter for new members, but governance may grow in importance over time. But governance can be a little opaque to newer members - may be important to think about messaging on this.
    • Continued discussion
      • Pascal: built up consortium for greater impact. If your institution relies on it, you want to see continued development.
      • Jyrki: ensure development. Interest in governance came later.
      • Jere: interest in governance, but motivation shifting to understanding that open access infrastructure requires financial support. Would like to see institutions think about their memberships as they do subscriptions for content.
  • Messages for different audiences -
    • Tim: robust and cohesive community is very important.
    • And question: are users of service providers any less inclined to contribute directly? How do they fit in to community and to governance? Pascal points out how many LG members use service providers.
    • Lieven: need to think about a structure to bring in more technologists and turn them into strong advocates. Kristi: governance there could use some rethinking. Lieven: there is a perception that you have to contribute development to participate in technology decisions.