Metadata Working Group: Governance

Metadata Working Group 1 – Governance
Session leader: Marc McGee
Goals for session:

Establish draft governance recommendation for adoption by group:
Formalization of MWG
Define charge
Define membership roles
Establish decision making process
Establish MWG goals for Summit

MWG Governance Draft [Google doc]

DWG Governance Draft [Google doc]

Steering Group Governance Draft

Session notes:

[DRAFT NOTES}Current draft very structured, can be loosened or tightened up
Reviewing the governance document….
Roles and Responsibilities
Members intending to be practitioners contributing to ongoing activities of the group, i.e. task group creating stylesheets, or another on best practices for metadata editing.  Members are actively working on activities
Affiliates – PEople who may not be directly involved in the group but who are necessary to the functioning of the group
Coordinator role is key. Can’t call phone conferences, etc. without a coordinator, probably two, to set agenda and prioritize.  OGP moves forward when working on things with the most people actively wanting it, and can devote the most energy. (Peter, CSU Fresno)
Important to recognize the contributors who can vote when consensus can’t be reached
Question about the difference between members and affiliates.
Suggestion that coordinators can be nominated not just be the sc but by the metadata WG members.
Each institution doesn’t have to do it all, can put energy into one side or another, metadata or development.
Agreement to keep coordinator roles, Marc McGee will continue as a coordinator now.  Nominations will come from the group or the SC.  Cooridnator must be from an institution with a voting member
Question: Do we want to continue to distinguish between the affiliate and the member role?
Patrick: keep
Suggestion to keep it simple at first, add complexity as needed.
Joeren suggests a split between voting members and non-voting.  Voting is required, and if you don’t vote in a two year period you lose voting status.  Lots of nodding heads on this subject.  Makes it clear what the difference is between roles
Decision: Nomenclature – voting member and member.
When no consensus, voting is needed.
Q: Is each institution only allowed one voting member?
MIT – suggests it is more fair.
Decision to keep it as is now.  Coordinator or voting members vote.
Joeren: Have new voting members proposed on a yearly basis, maximum 15% new voting members each year.  To keep with the spirit of the open source nature of the project, more individuals should be involved and not locked into institutional roles
Members/voting members do not need to be running an OGP instance
ACTION ITEM: Identify voting member from each institution that wants to have a voting member
ACTION ITEM: Nominations for coordinators, recommending two or three
TIMELINE: By the end of mwg meeting tomorrow
Starting with 1 VM per institution, this can grow with new members.
Coordinator is the voting member for their institution.
Need to add a process for what happens when an individual leaves an institution for which they are a voting member
Review process
Currently: Review after 6mo then annually
ACTION ITEM – Review governance model and processes
TIMELINE: 6 months
Part of the role of the coordinators is to communicate with the SC, are they members of the SC?
MWG doesn’t report to the SC, that language is too strong.
ACTION ITEM: Draft Governance Document
TIMELINE: End of the summit
Should we add an item for grant coordination to the charge for the group/coordinator?
How do we provide support to metadata creators?
Suggested a listserv specific to metadata?
Decision – keep it on the existing listserv for at least 6 months.  Review at that time.
How often will the group meet/check-in? Should this be in the document?
-Suggested organization around projects/task groups.
-Recommendation for some overall meeting of the whole MWG so that task groups don’t get too silo’ed
-DECISION- quarterly meetings pf the entire group
Any other institutions tha
ACTION ITEM:EMAIL OGP List the list of voting members and coordinators, call for participation from other institutions who couldn’t attend but want to nominate voting members
TIMELINE: Post-summit by friday, nominations by the next friday
ACTION ITEM: Once coordinators are identified, three month window to call the first meeting of the MWG
(post ALA)
Think about how we communicate MWG specific items
Before first meeting, survey of the conferences members are likely to attend will be sent out.
Send the voting member info to the wiki, have one week.

Action items:

ACTION ITEM: Identify voting member from each institution that wants to have a voting member

ACTION ITEM: Nominations for coordinators, recommending two or three

TIMELINE: By the end of mwg meeting tomorrow

Voting Members:

Jennie Murack, MIT
Marc McGee, Harvard