Difference between revisions of "Community Innovation Proposal Procedure"
(Created page with "Our goal is to make PKP's open source software as community based in its use, design, development, and testing as possible. To this end, in response to community proposals for so...")
Revision as of 14:12, 12 January 2011
Our goal is to make PKP's open source software as community based in its use, design, development, and testing as possible. To this end, in response to community proposals for software innovations, PKP is proceding as indicated below. This is based on the need to identify partners and external funding for developments that are not part of our existing Software Roadmaps and general milestones.
- PKP identifies a proposal candidate: PKP identifies an idea that appears worth discussing on technical, support, or scholarly grounds because it catches our attention as promising or has come up more than once or for whatever reason. Strengthening the community’s case for an innovation could include sending us (a) a fairly detailed use case, (b) a statement on the scale and type of journals that would potentially benefit from the service, and (c) soliciting endorsements from other groups of journals for the innovation.
- PKP internal discussion: PKP team reviews proposal for its potential technical and scholarly contribution in light of its scope and challenges. It decides whether to put the proposal aside for the time being or to proceed to the next step, informing the original proposers of this decision.
- PKP re-proposes: PKP team first provides the original proposers with ideas for an initial workaround solution for realizing the proposal as a way to demonstrate a proof of concept/prototype/test-bed that will inform further steps, including a recommendation that the originators develop a grant proposal, a decision that PKP will take the lead on such a proposal, or the innovation should be set aside before the time being:
- Originators develop grant proposal: PKP goes back to the original proposers, and suggests that we will support their development of this addition/extension, with PKP offering assistance with (i) technical specifications for platform, scope, hires, etc.; (ii) use of development environment; (iii) technical oversight for code quality; (iv) augment scholarly use and scholarly quality case; (v) potential funding sources (originators asked to review potential sites, depending on jurisdiction, including: SSRC (Canada), NSERC (Canada), NSF (US), Sloan, Mellon, and McArthur (with community additions to this list); and (vi) consulting with our relevant expert-contacts in fields such as Digital Humanities, Information Science, Software Engineering, etc.
- PKP develops grant proposal: PKP uses the original proposers as developers of instances, content, use cases, community-of-use, etc. to develop funding proposal.
- Submit grant proposal: Wait and see; then review grant response in deciding next steps...