Bamboo consortial model

"often universities have staff but not money; e.g. Habitat for Humanity: sweat equity; maybe small institutions who can't afford $ could contribute sweat equity" (Ex 1, 1b-B)

"If B[am]b[oo] decides it is primarily an academic space or community, it should leave space for explicitly non-academic activity as well. Should broaden base through action, investing resources and open communication. Danger of Politics: B[am]b[oo] should not let any one institution or organization dominant, or one type of institution (i.e. rich private research universities). Danger: it should be a community not club model" (Ex 5, 1b-D)

"Should reflect the diversity of community - organizational, international, affiliation, etc." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table A)

"Large community, you pay a fee, you get access to additional stuff, but there's also a lot available for free" (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table B)

"ELI - all about community, not about production; relatively inexpensive, but gets a lot of tension, energy, activity - brings focus, promotes discussion of things that will move forward community's interests." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table B)

"Sakai/Open Source Portfolio - invite everyone to build, very small-shop build, strongly encourages others to join a build in one form or another." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table B)

"Everything hinges on what is going on here; a big group? small core? What's PB going to do? If it's building, go small. If community, go big. What is the nature of the project? To produce? To promote discussion and discovery? What's the lifecycle? 1-3 years? 20-30 years?" (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table B)

"Like this assembly of people because it's sustaining this conversation, coming from 5 different identified disciplines; this is a valuable thing to support beyond a technology stack. Like a model where we are a consortium that helps support cyberinfrastructure for A&H; production of service framework is a great first project that sustained conversation can deliver." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table C)

"For models: wanted to look at group providing guidance to community, not necessarily Standards - best practices, help foster the conversation; in doing this, we need to recognize that we have to sustain membership by different types of institutions; different levels of commitment." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table C)

"Initial barrier of entry must be low - not a huge financial investment, but there might be other levels of involvement attained either through financial contribution or in-kind commitment of resources." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table C)

"Government is correlated with contribution" (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table D)

"Openness - decisions need to be open and reproducible (rationale for decision must be accessible and open - building trust)" (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table E)

"Consortial model needs to have in its statues the ability to change and be nimble about its own structure, the direction." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table E)

"Faculty and technologists have to work together as equal partners - faculty members can start off not realizing this, but it's valuable." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table F)

"Structure: balance democracy and sustainability." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table G)

"Network like the internet - weighted distribution, in the form of a leadership council drawn from members of the organization involved in applying for/distributing funding for institutions." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table G)

"Representation both regionally and kinds of institutions in Bamboo community (small liberal arts colleges, JStor, research universities)." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table G)

"Provision of incentives to members of Bamboo community (access to developments of other members, access to funding)." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table G)

"To what extent does membership confer privileged form of access - is membership a requirement for access? How strong is the boundary between inside/outside Bamboo? On behalf of whole community, or just Bamboo community?" (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table H)

"Bamboo could be a set of specifications and agreements; something one could conform to and conforming would result in the kinds of goals/behaviors PB is seeking." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table H)

"No overhead, no assumptions, no leadership council - could consume a lot of money and time without adding to the actual doing." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table H)

"Role of Stories is important; need to use that to understand how we can come up with models to facilitate faculty participation and leadership; how at an institutional level that can be developed." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Table I)

"Community formation should take place in parallel to any project execution (project board separated from governance of sustaining organization)." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Facilitated Discussion with Greg Jackson)

"Leadership is probably something more pragmatic than control." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Facilitated Discussion with Greg Jackson)

"Array of perspectives; very different models with convergence over broad set of goals. One could go from umbrellas of various sorts (collections of specialized activities) all the way to private clubs who do good on behalf of the world (secretly, then open it up). Progress requires a small group - nimble." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Facilitated Discussion with Greg Jackson)

"If we had to create a document by noon today, couldn't do it - too many people; equally flawed if Chad/David do it alone. Question of trust - key to progress here. Find the right set of people so the right things happen; also, make sure that communication is open enough so others can trust the group to make the right things happen (teams vs. committees) - everyone wants their group represented on a committee, teams come together for greater purpose/good." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Greg Jackson)

"Never thought about having management principles until asked - conspiracy and bribery. Conspiracy: need the right people to work with and try to get it done. Bribery: the right incentives are in place, so if the conspiracy works, you can get people to align with you. You don't get there by broadly-based representative democracy, but broad discussion is important." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Greg Jackson)

"Danger of participatory process ("we") is that we might take you seriously. Not a demand that "we" all together make this decision, but whoever makes it brings it back to the community for sanctioning. Call for transparency in the process, influencing the conversation and outcome." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Facilitated Discussion with Greg Jackson)

"What has been contributed here is a rich set of possible principles; minimalists on one hand and maximalists on the other. In both cases, what's being talked about is a principle that can't be fully fleshed out because we don't have info about other aspects of decision making. A smaller group will think about the notes and come up with some more fully fleshed out ideas; would be good if two alternatives proposed could be fleshed out as scenarios along with full consequences - some things can't be supported if we pick one or another. We can't decide here, you can't even tell what we'd vote for because we don't know full scenarios would be. Transparency is important - before PB goes forward, needs to be a process that re-involves all of us in a way that equips us to contribute to a decision." (W2, Plenary Sharing 5, Facilitated Discussion with Greg Jackson)

"Interplay between deciding what consortium structure might look like, and what kinds of shared services would enable it. Org level at higher level has impact on shared services kind of thing" (W3, Shared Services, Report: Proposal and Moving Forward)

"I tend to worry about success more than failure - it's a lot harder. If we were thinking a 3-year project, what do we do in year 4?" (W3, Straw Consortial Model, Chad Kainz)

"Sustainability/reality of all this - we have to reduce individual institutional risk by distributing activity/services throughout community. No one institution has to bear burden for everyone, shared by multiple institutions in different ways. Problem of the Grand Repository - no one wants to run it, because everyone hates you when it breaks." (W3, Straw Consortial Model, Chad Kainz)

"Explore/Plan/Build. Explore: explores possibilities enabled or created by Bamboo. Figuring out what's needed - how people are using the technology. Needs to be a filtering process: Plan layer. Takes input from Explore and prioritizes those activities. Figures out what needs to be done and expresses what should be part of the community and portfolio of things Bamboo members use. Liaison role - formally intersects with "plan" layer. Formal conversations, rather than informal conversations that may not get too far. Build - actually builds stuff, takes prioritized list and builds that, and makes it available (thinks a lot about technology layer that will have to run underneath Bamboo)." (W3, Straw Consortial Model, Chad Kainz)

"Lead institutions would invest resources to wrangle, coordinate and guide activities within a layer. Lead institutions become "Bamboo Partners" - burden of moving PB as a whole forward, become part of core set - these become leadership team and move tings forward. Model is based on members working towards betterment of broader community. This is a circle- everything feeds back into the community for assessment of value. "Members" shape and undertake individual aspects of leadership at a small scale (for a service, or something for leading professional development activities for scholars). As members take more responsibility, these become partners. Partners guide and shape the direction of Bamboo's members." (W3, Straw Consortial Model, Chad Kainz)

"[Outrech] Envisioned in 3 places-- can happen at explore layer, at plan layer - formal expression of what Bamboo chooses to do (to head a Bamboo service), leadership layer - important for all projects, who can represent BAMBOO? We all do, but at some point someone wants to point to one or more institutions that can speak on behalf of it." (W3, Straw Consortial Model, Chad Kainz)

"Formal liaisons is critical-- there's existing consortia, but there's also been discussion about how areas outside the US. The way a lot of projects happen outside the US - driven by nationa intitiative s and large regional activities. How does PB engage with those? - regional networks. Some people have multiple hats as members of organizations; "for the sake of Bamboo, I'm with this organization, but I may sometimes represent institution if necessary". Can participate in PB in a focused fashion. Liaisons interact formally w/ plan layer; engaged in other places (we all participate and contribute in different places) - formal connection comes in with plan layer. Long list of potential liaison organizations. Formal liaisons interact between memberships, fits into fabric of plan." (W3, Details of Straw Consortial Model, Chad Kainz)

"How idea of partners comes in - 3-6 (at least 3 because of 3 layers). Sit on some sort of leadership thing ("the Board"). Each partner represents the layer it's leading, reflecting what's coming from that layer. Big Bamboo Direction, what we should be doing as a large organization. Need a Bamboo "Office" - there's a lot to running this, it's a lot to manage/maintain. Institution that administers the business side, deals with large community activity coordination work, but doesn't lead any of the layers. An institution not buried by leading something else - a balance across the different layers. Fills role of neutral party, chairs the "Board", acts as the "executive director". Bamboo "Board" - works together to ensure PB is headed in the right direction, however "right" is defined - should be clear if it's coming out of layers of community." (W3, Details of Straw Consortial Model, Chad Kainz)

"We are fully consortial institution-- faculties drawn from various institutions. We had to develop complicated consortial model. Codify that consortial model extremely carefully - a group of people in this room are the "original gangsters" - they'll be gone someday, and people lose sense of connection to what started this. People come in at the community layer level and not be clear about partners/leadership team. Need a doc we can all use that's fairly clear. Office/exec director model - if it's a wedding cake, it's a fairly traditional couple sitting on top. Is that the right model for the kind of broad-based community that sits at the broader level? This might lead to some alienation." (W3, Details of Straw Consortial Model, Q&A)

"Governance pyramid may enforce hierarchy we see among higher ed institutions. Governance structure should have agility necessary for innovation. How does gov structure show value of diversity - specify representation? Didn't see a process for generating assessment of organization, adjustment based on assessment. Haven't seen a lot of group votes, e-mail votes, methods for everyone to provide feedback other than e-mails and wiki. May want to reach out about that." (W3, Table Discussions of Consortial Model 2, Table 3)

"Will consortium work? Planning layer is a concern - if it's small, you have a bottleneck between cool community stuff and builders. Agile - need to move planning one down, so what planners do is get builders very close in sticking to labs and stuff like that, rapid and iterative development." (W3, Table Discussions of Consortial Model 2, Table 4)

"Concern about early vs late adopters - some institutions which can't contribute now but could contribute during build phase; how do you value input of early/late adopters, balancing incentives of helping out in the beginning vs need to grow a community" (W3, Table Discussions of Consortial Model 2, Table 10)

"Introduce element of time - one of concerns about cons[ortial] model, it's very elaborate, centralization about it; given discussions of limited resources, it seems there's implicit assumption that there's a limited timeframe in which PB has to get something done. This is backwards - we'll end up with a more simplified model in reality. Opening discussion of this kind of model will run risk of calcifying view of what PB should be rather than allowing qualities to emerge more organically. If we set our sights within limits of resources, focus on small, clearly defined goals to begin with, this is how you earn right to build towards that kind of model. Also solves question of how to sell to institutions - we've achieved these four small things rather than tackling a large thing. Tempting to go for the home run, but without undercutting our own potential, doing something achievable in the beginning will lead up to greater success" (W3, Table Discussions of Consortial Model 2, Table 11)

"Now: In this new environment, what's the best work for us? One of important goals, as we develop program document, continue to flesh out 7-10 year issues. Turn this to a 3-year focus. Wrote document specifically for the workshop; not yet supposed to be full program document to be shared w/ funding group. At least one fundamental part that's missing-- take Boromean Ring diagram, and add necessary part in the middle. Humanities practices and disciplinary actions need to be woven in" (W4 Introductory Remarks, David Greenbaum)

"Complexity of what we're trying to accomplish, may require different levels of coordination. Doing something ambitious with long-term goals, like shared services may require some more complex consortial models." (W4, Program Document Section 5, Q&A, David Greenbaum)

"Mary Jacobus remarked that a shadow governance model is the economy and resource availability. If we develop full-scale models of committees, board, etc. we can use up a million dollars on that alone. Wouldn't be a good use of Mellon funding. Exploratory work going on at the beginning; have a very small PB office, because it's not clear there's the resources to support a huge governance structure. More exploration, less governance would be positive" (W4, Program Document Section 5, Q&A, Robert Gibbs)

"Setting requirement for institutions - must join for eligibility for API services" (W4 Action Plan - 4.4 Tool and Application Alignment Partnerships)

"Guiding principle: BROAD IMPACT. Overall goal: FACILITATE NEW AND BETTER WORK IN HUMANITIES." (W4 - Guiding Principles for Bamboo, Group 1)

"Accessibility
-Accessible to many people and institutions
-Avoid siloing projects
-Finding way to show value to everyone
-Ability to get a journal publication
-Availability to move forward
-Access to services
-Access to decision-making process" (W4 - Guiding Principles for Bamboo, Group 1)

"Visualization: Make it possible for people who aren't technical to see what Bamboo is and does from the beginning. Legibility: A way into the site, a sense of what it is and does. Access points: When you go to the website, you want to know what it is and what to do." (W4 - Guiding Principles for Bamboo, Group 1)

"Problem: criteria for membership for PB? Institutions have signed up because we want to benefit from other people and exchange what we have." (W4 - Guiding Principles for Bamboo, Group 4)

"No better way to actually have it clear that we ant to be a partner, than to be a partner. Short timeframe - could shift emphasis on building to a small group of people (heads down, get it done). But can't lose overall community design/development/outreach, including notion of professional development/outreach that we articulated early on. Make sure we create opportunities for contribution for non-build institutions. Learn from mistakes and successes (our own, others'). More visible connections to what's gone before." (W4 - Guiding Principles for Bamboo, Group 5)

"Need to see sensible and useful things coming out of it. Iterative processes, rapid testing; working towards the real thing. Collaboration is key. Communication." (W4 - Guiding Principles for Bamboo, Group 6)

"Organization that helps rally institutional resources to deliver, necessary to provide value in some way. Making it more affordable, by spreading cost across institutions. Number of ways to organize this at the moment. I regret I still don't know what PB is." (W4 - Guiding Principles for Bamboo, Group 7)

"I'd like to say that it is important in year1/2 to think about strategic connection of PB with certain their consortia, initiatives and appropriate Societies – as a way to quickly add value, without duplication of effort – and to address the question "why do we need another consortium now and I thought that "X" already did this , or could do this", in a time of very tight resources and focusing of resources for all." (W4 - Guiding Principles for Bamboo, Tom Knab).

"Very diverse community, we have to respect that. We work together, but bring many different perspectives. How do we come to agreement? None of the charts have everyone agreeing on the same thing? Need to finds some way of making decisions, finding some kind of consensus. There'll be trade-offs on the way, but we're all striving for the common good. This should lead to advancements in projects/individual research/etc. Integrating things we could benefit from into different projects. Evolve as needs and interests change. Today what we're doing seems to work, but in 5 years it may be different, and PB has to recognize that things will change and we'll have to adapt." (W4, Program Document Section 5)

""Exploration lab" - what is it? Concept of lab resonated w/ members of leaderships council. Place with interesting experimentation. Where people solve problems at large scale/small scale. Cluster around getting something done. Think about work that needs to be done in PB as a collection of labs. Not a grand, big project of developing something like Kuali. New possibilities, existing possibilities for research/scholarship/learning, etc. Cluster around particular areas of common interest; promoting idea of innovation; if you want something done, you work towards that goal. By keeping activity in smaller clusters, you can react more quickly to particular problems. For any of this to work, there has to be some structured activity/effort. Focus on getting things done: "let's get started with something!" Gotta figure out what the something is." (W4, Program Document Section 5)

"There's also a reality of administrative overhead we have to deal with to get through funding stage, etc. Don't want to wait on BAMBOO to make a big decision - that slows everybody down. Reducing the amount of administrative overhead necessary. Get to the point of getting stuff done. Community component - anyone who's interested in what PB is doing. Members are people who are coordinating activity at own institutions or here, undertaking/promoting projects, as they evolve they're an instantiation of labs. Shaping/refining scope/direction of PB. Working w/ other organizations in PB-wide initiatives. There's much inside the membership box - didn't want to over think the problem. Certain levels of leadership like we talked about before." (W4, Program Document Section 5)

"Formal liaison. Diversity - range of people involved with Bamboo. You and your organizations know this kind of stuff in your own local organizations, how paperwork works - can serve as liaison. Notion of how can we make sure we get things done - not trying to move 42 institutions in one direction. Maybe people at one table think we need one thing, others sort of go along with it, but not everyone has to participate." (W4, Program Document Section 5)

Q: "Think of labs as playground, exploration ground for faculty to explore digital humanities projects. But central coordination/duplication of exploration - driven from a more technical POV; building up technical projects, so less a place for faculty. What is the primary purpose?"
A: "Keep pushing boundaries, keep pushing innovation. Can we extend the work that's going on? Google Labs - access to services that may or may not be officially supported services, but it's something you can try. Where this breaks down might be extending it to the oversight level of entire project. Larger coordination activities might need to be classified as something else. Overall playground model needs to be treated in a slightly different way?" (W4, Program Document Section 5)

Worthy Martin, UVA: "A few more thoughts about Explore as labs - lots of opportunities to explore right now
So why would they go to PB to explore, except there's some resources there that make it more possible? Is that the case? Do you envision having resources there?"
Chad Kainz: "PB isn't meant to become a funding agency - what are the other funding elements? Deeper resources from other institutions? There'll be some outcome from this, for better or worse. There's an allocation issue built inside of this." (W4, Program Document Section 5)

"We need to put this together and see what happens; governance needed to get us off the ground isn't the same as the "ring" governance of the long term. You don't start off with a complete set of rings, but parts of them - they fill out over time. Get things out the door ASAP, w/o being weighed down." (W4, Program Document Section 5)

"Explore is built into very fabric of PB. Fully articulated version of that won't be there. But in the beginning it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a few PB sanctioned labs doing fundamental exploration. Then we get to resource issues - labor isn't free, but you're not a funding agency. Want to elicit cost sharing, but if PB had incubator fund for first year, to help labs form (w/ understanding that labs "home" would have at least one-to-one matching) - could lead to sustainable model." (W4, Program Document Section 5, Neil Fraistat)

"Mary Jacobus remarked that a shadow governance model is the economy and resource availability. If we develop full-scale models of committees, board, etc. we can use up a million dollars on that alone. Wouldn't be a good use of Mellon funding. Exploratory work going on at the beginning; have a very small PB office, because it's not clear there's the resources to support a huge governance structure. More exploration, less governance would be positive." (W4, Program Document Section 5, Robert Gibbs)

"Governance issue is one - pretty utopian to think calibrating value of contribution leads to parity in governance. Governance will be determined by what institutions can put in." (W4, Program Document Section 5, Debjani Ganguly)

Debjani Ganguly: "Third strand that doesn't cohere for me: liaisons section. Organizational contacts/connections, but can happen through PB Exchange. Dynamic of collaborating w/ organizations. This is a technology project, so why have a separate section on liaisons?"
Chad Kainz: Liaisons are critical so we shouldn't do things we just shouldn't do. How to manifest that, where it fits in - folding these things together didn't work. Time to split those things apart; if you have anything you could e-mail me, please tell me. Work with me on sorting this thing through, so we can get this right. We have to get this mostly right, doesn't have to be perfect to get us out the door." (W4, Program Document Section 5)

"Structure is hard and expensive. This level of structure is 7-10 year plan. Overkill for 1 year. I'm still trying to see the diagram in the context of the other ones-- where's the forum and community in here? Having a hard time seeing it." (W4, Table Discussion of Section 5, Worthy Martin)

"A lot of this structure is cart before the horse. Hard to evaluate structure w/o knowing what work is. What projects is it supporting? Can't build such a structure who are motivated to explore/build on abstract projects. PROJECTS are the key. People want to bring forward projects, leverage two-for-one dollars from Mellon or lead it by pledging funding from elsewhere. Need a light structure that provides governance for bringing people together to work together on projects they already have self-interest to work on. Focus on things that build common infrastructure." (W4, Table Discussion of Section 5, Duffy Gillman)

"Distinction between governance and economics of membership. Early on, might want it to be free so we could use the wider landscape. Need a lot of people using it? Don't charge membership. May need different models for different work objects. Governing social networking might be different than services. Continuum with membership and communities - not discrete" (W4, Table Discussion of Section 5, Tim Babbit)

"Apache model offers something worth looking at. Large organization but still has a good reputation after 10 years. Focus on the social - incubation of projects, graduating when has certain purity, open to all but certain privileges on merit. Meritocracy. This is a model we could imitate; $300,000 dollars/yr. If circumstances are so dire, inclined to rethink some of the plans - work out what we might get started doing there. Assume money won't be there, but use what's left of planning grant to get a cooperative organization off the ground." (W4, Table Discussion of Section 5, John Norman)

"Much of table's focus was re: what this might look like on the ground. What's the real distinction between member and community? Comes down to quantification of contributions, how is participation measured. Longitudinal commitment might have relevance - contribution over a period of years has a value beyond each single year's value (1000 dollars a year for five years has an equal value to a one year commitment of 5000 dollars). Digital Library Federation is a model of an organization that has a fee, and puts money toward projects that demonstrate compliance with the DLF's standards. What does "Bamboo will coordinate" really mean? Is there a Bamboo-funded Project Manager." (W4, Table Discussion of Section 5)

"This is a community-driven effort; some of the greatest value comes from linking together and building sustainable structure for different kinds of talents. Also means, from the start, understanding from different institutions what they can commit. From the start, trying to tackle sustainability." (W5, Overview: Major Areas of Work)

"At some level, things have to connect together. At least two lead institutions associated w/ each working group that would connect in with Bamboo. Why 2? Based on our experience - huge benefit of working between Chicago and Berkeley - trading perspectives, bringing different ideas together. If there's a situation where an institution can no longer participate, entire work of working group won't come to a screeching halt. Leadership in a working group - more than managing mailing list, but trying to shape/guide working group. How it proceeds re: scope, does all the "right" things. That's a serious investment." (W5, Open Discussion: Governance)

"Ongoing dialog/connections w/ Clarin, DARIAH. Responsibility through executive committee to make sure Bamboo connects with that. Type of work that needs to be done, materials people want to use, etc, are not bound by own institutions/connections. All trying to use materials that are used globally. Taking into account the world, not niche, in which we live. The way the project has been working thus far: David and I and Rich have been filling this role so far. Recommend things, take things, etc to leadership council. Questions and challenges we're facing. That is built into mechanism we've seen work well. Talk about over time, transition from Chicago-Berkeley leadership to an advisory board made up of representatives of projects moving forward. In executive committee, people worried about completing activities - short-medium term effort; strategic direction- where to go, what doing - greater than executive committee. Leadership council does the strategic vision. Leadership council made up of executive committee members. And other members at large. Need to have majority of faculty representation. Certain amount of executive committee, project leadership, but most of it comes from community. "in 4 years what should we be doing?" Provides advisory board function with gearing towards not technical advice, but strategic advice around where scholarship is going, what we should be doing." (W5, Open Discussion: Governance)

"In each of working group areas, explore/plan/build component. Executive Committee-- plan component. Leadership committee - high-level explore/plan. Where a bit of the community not being a working group anymore (this is a challenge for us to draft with your input) in section 5 - strong explore component in what was formerly community, that informs the rest of the work." (W5, Open Discussion: Governance)

"2 things that play here - going to go to Mellon and put in a proposal, that will have resources; how to do something appropriate for that? Organizational process that has to go on to distribute money. But there's also the issue of the larger community that's going to be facilitated by that activity - need a different kind of organization for that. Can understand this for Mellon grant, that makes sense, but how that is done in the first year grant, how this anticipates future organization > goes back to "fuzzball" diagram." (W5, Open Discussion: Governance, Worthy Martin)

Q: "Principal investigators are part of leadership council; who are those?" David Greenbaum: "Trying to figure out for institutions who are members, some may be making a large commitment, taking a greater degree of responsibility for submission of proposal/guiding project. May have a number of "principal investigators". People in big leadership role may need to be represented appropriately in executive committee and leadership council. Right now, we have formal PIs + representatives from other parts of institution that are fundamentally important. Want to move work forward and get it done, but have a kind of openness and inclusiveness that allows guidance from broader community, exploring other projects. Trying to get that balance - we have requirements for year 1-2 building, and evolving more long-term." Kaylea Champion: "As I see member institutions expressing/steering/driving/working with project is entirely through working group; certain working group members are also members of leadership council. Is that too much to ask, esp for faculty members?" (W5, Open Discussion: Governance)

Q: "In W3/W4, beginning of discussion about what incentives the larger community has to become a member rather than being passive. Haven't looked at 3 major areas through that lens; that's important. What's going to be limited to members? What's the incentive to be a member?" (W5, Open Discussion: Governance)

Jim Muehlenberg: "Just want to add, since 5 strands of work, might be helpful to consider sub-leadership. If Chicago/Berkeley are busy with deliverables, can we help? Early planning piece?" Steve Masover: "Great idea, we'll talk about it." David Greenbaum: "Want to move towards model of others taking different forms of leadership/responsibility. Getting ready for implementation phase where that's the model." (W5, Bamboo Atlas Demonstrator follow-up)

Bamboo tags: 

Add new comment