Time/Place

Time: 12:00pm Eastern Time (US)

Please see the calendar invite for the Zoom link.

Attendees

1. Tammy Allgood Wolf 
2. Melissa Anez
3. Chris Awre 
4. Thomas Bernhart
5. Danny Bernstein 
6. Robert Cartolano 
7. Sayeed Choudhury (Aaron Birkland will represent JHU)
8. Stefano Cossu
9. Dan Coughlin
10. Jon Dunn 
11. Dan Field
12. Raman Ganguly
13. Jennifer Gilbert
14. Babak Hamidzadeh
15. Neil Jefferies
16. Mark Jordan
17. Danny Lamb
18. Rosalyn Metz 
19. Este Pope 
20. Scott Prater
21. Robin Ruggaber 
22. Tim Shearer
23. Andrew Woods 
24. Dustin Slater 
25. Jennifer Vinopal 
26. David Wilcox
27. Wei Xuan
28. Maurice York
29. Laurie Arp 
30. Robert Miller

Agenda

Previous Action Items

Notes

Financial Update

Report shared in advance; main points in the agenda above. We are at end of fiscal year. 

IMLS Fedora Migration Grant Announcement

Previous IMLS grant (last year) examined barriers to migration. One clear takeaway: migration is difficult, requiring a lot of effort, but the value proposition wasn't clear. To bring the community forward, the value proposition needs to go up and the work needed to migrate must to go down. Users don't just want tools; the want examples, pathways, pilots to follow. 

Phase one: work with two pilots institutions. One a custom Fedora, and then an Islandora institution (fairly standard and representative). Goal is not just migration, but to create documentation and guides which can be shared. 

Phase two: taking the toolkit produced by the first phase, sharing it more broadly, and improving it. 

Phase three: (dependant on COVID): hold a migration camp, with funded migrations. Could be online if face-to-face events are still hazardous.

IMLS Grant Impacts

We have surpassed the projected budget deficit, but the IMLS grant pays for 50% of David's time, so we don't need to dip into net assets to cover the shortfall.

BUT- this will be a 50% reduction in David's time for other activities. Which duties will David no longer be able to perform, or will perform less? How will these tasks be managed? Program Leadership Activities Document outlines a list of tasks and suggests areas where the Chair and Chair-Elect can help to fill in gaps. Fedora Governance Sub-Group could help with election organization, but David will still need to run the form to preserve election confidentially.

Community engagement: Este, Rosalyn, and David ran a membership forum this year. Afterwards, they handled a number of follow up communications, which dovetails well with the membership work section of the list. Having doen one meeting, repeat meetings will be easier. The work may not be done as David would have done it, but the grant will also have outreach aspects.

Conference proposals and presentations: can be directed to Steering, with leadership ooped in as needed. The grant will also feed into conferences.

This should reduce the work reasonably, but we will need to evaluate how well it's working. Communication to the community about David's re-allocation of time could help as well, to manage expectations. 

Can we front-load David's time now on communication, ahead of his time reduction, especially as regards Fedora 6 messaging?

David has already started work on the grant, which officially starts in September.

Is there an opportunity to bring in a different staff member on reduced time, using the budget freed-up by the grant?

Laurie is working through the numbers for this. 

Assessing Different Funding Models

Reflection of current situation is that current Fedora funding model isn't working as well as it has.  This isn't just Fedora, other communities are experiencing the same.  Lyrasis is more generally looking at funding opportunities where it can.

Exercise for the Leadership Group to look at and discuss two alternative funding models using Zoom breakout rooms, with Steering Group facilitators.

• Licensing model - 10 mins discussion
• Centralised model - 10 mins discussion

Come together again to compare notes.

Question about DSpace - this is more global in its community, hence has had greater resilience.  But they also do not have a dedicated program managerf, which is impacting on their ability to grow during the pandemic.

Rosy's breakout room:

Licensing model pros and cons:

Do we have a sense of how the community would respond?

Is this really a licensing model ?  Perhaps we need a different name for what we're talking about.

Prompt the user to register and prompt to pay the licensing fee? Helps us know who is using the software.

Phoning home is possibly at odds with Open Source values?

ArchiveSpace does not have a tracking device,  but offering exclusive benefits to support membership proposition

How would this change impact all those who are using the software that we do not currently know about? 

Talking paper clip constantly reminding you you need to make a donation?

Are we talking about a requirement to buy a license or just constant reminder that you haven't yet supported the project?

To what extent does the community understand that Fedora is under financial strain?

Would the messaging go to the right place?  The developers / devops people are the ones who would see this message - not the ones holding the purse strings.

We could ask for minimal information (what is your institution) in order to 

One membership to rule them all approach

Cons:

• Heavier lift politically within an institution
• Folks might want to support only the elements they use

Pros:

• One  bill - convenient -  doesn't say "membership" but rather "support of open infrastructure" - technology support fee,  technology development fee.

Maybe we need a focus group/survey  to try to  understand how appealing this approach is,  especially understanding whether one bill  ( one institution/cause to support ) is to administrators.

CARES grant could help us get  the answers to these questions.

Este's breakout room:

Other models should be considered?
Shared community manager (DSpace, Fedora, others?)
-- not a current model in Lyrasis
  some efficiencies could be achieved, but may not address fundamental need that members need to contribute
How many people even know they are using Fedora (Islandora, Hyrax...)
Are there other ope source licensing models out ther that work?
Easier to make a business case to license a thing, rather purchase a membership
-- Risk: may cause people to drop out
Timing is critical (now not the best time to shift?)
What would be the incentive to switch to a license model?
-- The software itself: the alternative is a future with no support?
Opportunity with 6: move to new financing model for that version
-- generate income: migration consultancy to 6
Licensing also a commitment to long-term sustainability
License, as currently written, is not compulsory (anyone can use Fedora without license)
What advantages come along with a license model, financially -- at what point would a license be cheaper for a license than a membership model? What would be the optimum price point?
Meta-questions: do people use Fedora because it's free? Do people value Fedora enough to pay for it?
-- if people were to stop using Fedora, what would they use?
-- what are the alternatives to Fedora?
-- what is the total cost of ownership for Fedora (staff expertise, etc.)

David's Group

Robin: Brought up the Samvera example: if you are an institution of a certain size and you are using Samvera, you are expected to become a partner.

“Licensing” fee may not be a palatable way of framing the requirement to pay; Mark suggested that “Sustaining” fee may be better. Framing should be transparent about the necessity for contributing more funds.

Maurice wondered if a fee should be only applicable to Fedora 6 and not earlier versions.

Make Fedora nagware?

Raman thinks that institutions in Europe won’t pay a fee, since there are alternatives to Fedora in some platform domains, e.g. Zenodo.

Centralized funding

• Allows organizations to pay one invoice rather than many
• Coordination of roadmaps and interoperability between projects
• Pivoting the membership model in a way that allows the academy to continue owning its own software and services
• Funding for innovation

Action Items