Difference between revisions of "Members Committee Meeting Minutes 28 Sept 2012"

From PKP Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 24: Line 24:
 
'''Terms of Reference''':
 
'''Terms of Reference''':
 
The committee assignment was discussed  
 
The committee assignment was discussed  
a.) review the options for the composition of the Members Committee with a particular focus on the non-sponsor participation
+
#) review the options for the composition of the Members Committee with a particular focus on the non-sponsor participation
b.) propose criteria for additional community sectors and develop a list of suitable participants for each one
+
#) propose criteria for additional community sectors and develop a list of suitable participants for each one
c.) apply and/or expand these criteria to the development of a PKP sponsorship policy
+
#) apply and/or expand these criteria to the development of a PKP sponsorship policy
d.) prepare a report with recommendations for the PKP Advisory Committee
+
#) prepare a report with recommendations for the PKP Advisory Committee
  
  

Revision as of 14:17, 21 January 2014

Agenda

Roll Call/Introductions:

  • In attendance: Cynthia Archer (Chair), Amy Buckland, Mark Cyzyk, Geoff Harder, Inba Kehoe Jennifer Laherty, Karen Meijer-Kline, Holly Mercher, Judith Russell, Beth Sandore Namachchivaya, Kevin Stranack.


Review Meeting Objectives

  • Review the committee assignment
  • Draft mission statement
  • Draft committee mandate


Mission statement: Below are two mission statements for consideration by the Membership Committee. The recommended statement will be forwarded to the Advisory Committee.

Version A: The Public Knowledge Project is dedicated to improving the scholarly and public quality of research, by facilitating online publication of and access to scholarly and creative works. It aims to achieve this through the development of open source software, through the support of online publishing for scholars and creators around the world, and through being an active player in the open access movement.


Version B: The Public Knowledge Project is dedicated to improving the scholarly and public quality of research, by facilitating online publication of and access to scholarly and creative works. It aims to achieve this through the development of open source software, through the support of online publishing for scholars and creators in developing countries, and through being an active player in the open access movement. It also encourages local control and author ownership. Its work seeks to expand the realm of public education by improving social science's contribution to public knowledge, in the belief that such a contribution is critical to academic freedom, the public use of reason, and deliberative forms of democracy.


Terms of Reference: The committee assignment was discussed

  1. ) review the options for the composition of the Members Committee with a particular focus on the non-sponsor participation
  2. ) propose criteria for additional community sectors and develop a list of suitable participants for each one
  3. ) apply and/or expand these criteria to the development of a PKP sponsorship policy
  4. ) prepare a report with recommendations for the PKP Advisory Committee


The committee discussed a possible mandate. The following mandate received general agreement among those present. The mandate will need approval or endorsement by the Advisory Committee:

  1. To expand the scope of and increase the size of membership. One strategy is to consider how contributions may be through funding and/or through gifts-in-kind.
  2. To fundraise, with the goal of sustainable PKP operations where contributions may be through funding or gifts-in-kind
  3. To engage in outreach and community building, with the goal of energizing membership
  4. To develop, support and deliver non-technical education programs
  5. To bring issues of concern from members to the PKP organization by maintaining strong relationships and lines of communication

The committee tried to articulate a set of principles for participation and common values such as, e.g., open access commitment needs to be agreed upon. Several questions were raised:

  • What defines a member?
  • Since our software can be used by anyone, do we need to make a distinction between the software and what PKP stands for?
  • Does being a member necessitate a deeper commitment to shared values and vision?
  • Can non-members participate in other ways?

Action: Membership for the Terms of Reference need to be further developed so that they include participating groups, sponsor representation, and non-sponsor representation as well as identify any length of terms. Are there any volunteers to take this on? (KS/KMK if necessary)

  • Questions and comments that arose re the terms of reference:
    • The committee cannot be smaller than it is now, since sponsorship assures representation on PKP committees.
    • If sponsorship entitles a seat on the members committee, then what is the length of term?
    • The size of the members committee will also need to be reviewed as the number of sponsors grows. If the committee becomes too large, will be consider breaking up into smaller groups?
    • Does excluding non-sponsors from the committee mean that there is an economic barrier to membership? Who has a voice in the committee?
    • We may need to find other value incentives to sponsors, beyond committee membership. This is especially relevant when committees become too large.


Expand current Membership Committee composition: We should focus on finding (non-)sponsor representatives from large OJS installations in Africa, Latin America, and south Asia (KS can identify). Decisions should be based on feedback from all groups of PKP users (geographically). Initially, we may need to include non-sponsor members from these areas, but they will be replaced by sponsors when available. We should make a distinction between the developing and the developed world, and consider non-monetary contributions (eg. translations).

Action: The number one priority is getting a member from Central and South America.

Action: The second priority is to get a member from Africa and from South Asia because of the number of PKP based publications.

There was strong support among those present to include GIK donors (product development partners) on the Membership Committee. We need to explore and identify how we may include non-sponsors, specifically GIK donors on the Membership Committee.

Action: The priority is to get a least a couple of GIK partners for the PKP AGM in August 2013.

  • Additional categories, such as non-member participation, need to be added. It was suggested to include 2 non-sponsors. The need for including scholarly societies, such as SPARC Europe, was also voiced.

The question of whether to accept and include sponsors from the commercial sector, such as Springer, was discussed, but no decision has been made regarding. The question will be considered again at the next meeting.


Committee Communications It was discussed how the committee will keep in touch. The option of mailing lists is given: - mailing list: pkp-members@sfu.ca, also pkp-sponsors@sfu.ca

Action: Several committee members expressed preference for a Google Group. KMK will create and send the information to all members.


Education Activities The goal is to provide education programs for PKP users with the lowest overhead possible and contain travel costs for attendees. It was recommended that we target some large conferences such as OLA and ACRL to provide workshops on digital publishing and include streams for editors etc.

This same topic came up at the end of the PKP meeting. It was agreed that a small working group of 3 to 5 people, to organize and lead the organization in developing and delivering education programs, will be formed under the “Membership Committee”. They will design and deliver some programs.

Action: Create an education working group 3 to 5 people to organize and lead the organization in developing and delivering education programs. Amy Buckland offered to lead this group. We will seek up to three more people to work with her.


Other

  • Fundraising ideas were discussed:
    • Expanding sponsorships. How can we do this? E.g. we should explore different geographical regions, such as Hong Kong, Australia, Europe. Cold calling has given 0 responses. We should focus on creating a community or users group in these areas, for which person to person contact will be essential. We could give presentations, make our case in person. We can contact members about contact names and contact information.

We should explore alternative language around "sponsorship" for locations that might have problems with that -- e.g., "membership". If we change the wording around sponsorship, emphasizing that participation advances the strategic goals of libraries/universities, then this makes it possible for those institutions located in other countries to contribute. We will need to find out what the different rules and legalities are in, for example, the U.S., European countries, and Australia.

  • Some ideas were given about how to inspire people to get involved or give smaller financial contributions. There could be a concrete ‘wish list’ on the website, with smaller projects that need to be funded, with concrete dollar amounts. A sort of ‘tip jar’. The items on the wish list could maybe be voted up or down. Concrete projects and goals are more appealing, since these things can be mentioned in annual reports: “this is how our university helped develop such and such”.

Action: KS/KMK/BO will share a draft sponsorship expansion plan with committee Action: Another idea was to make OJS more mobile friendly. This would fit the strategic plan of libraries very well. This suggestion will be forwarded to the advisory committee.

Bike rack

  • The question of commercial publishers as sponsors or members
  • Fundraising: Some additional areas to pursue include organizations outside Canada such as NEH, JISC,
  • Marketing – Research on Open Access and PKP needs to be promoted.