2020 11 12 Advisory WG Agenda and Notes

---

confluence-id: 197918861

confluence-space: %%CONFLUENCE-SPACE%%

---

2020-11-12 AG Agenda and Notes

Created by John Kunze, last modified on Nov 12, 2020

Date

12 Nov 2020

Attendees

• John Kunze

• Mark Phillips

• Kurt Ewoldsen

• Kate Wittenberg

• Ricc Ferrante

• Frédérique Joannic-Seta

• Brian McBride

Goals

• draft brochure site, funding update

Discussion items

Time	Item	Who	Notes
	announcements * December meeting cancelled?		At least 3 ARK-related talks coming up at CNI and PIDapalooza. Agreed to cancel December meeting.
	brief review of draft brochure site with new brand and logo * ok to move forward? * rollout when? January?		JK: review of draft arks.org site - home page, new name, logo - goal of migrating select content from n2t.net and lyrasis wiki - work in progress – please comment MP: looks good KW: agreed; would be good to add a couple sentences to the current one-sentence comparison between DOIs and ARKs KE: there could be a link out to where this is address in the FAQ RF: figuring that out will take time, but generally better for links not to leave the site All: ok to move forward All: ok  with rollout early next year
	funding status * leading partner + CDL * looking for a 3rd partner * Other forms to express community support		JK: huge thanks to Mark for agreeing to act as leading partner on the grant KW: we should remember that the more partners on a grant, the more complex the admin gets; if community buy-in is the goal, a show of that can be achieved with letters of support and/or an advisory board (AB) KE: yes, we are open to any way that signals to funders that there's community support KW: might be strategic to have other letters of support (say 3) from outside AITO KW: funders sometimes want to know that you're in a collaborative rather than competitive situation with like-minded orgs, hence support letter (whether from within AITO or outside it) RF: a letter from Lyrasis and the network behind it could be very important KW: the detailed proposal should specify individuals who have committed (if proposal is funded) to serve on the AB; their having specific skills related to the project should be attractive to funders BM: being on the AB is a much easier ask of institutions than being a partner RF: haven't had a chance yet to check with SI on the partner question KW: sometimes an AB role rather than a partner role eliminates conflict of interest problems MP: there's usually flexibility, depending on amount of money and funding source; we have lots of experience leading "in name" with money flowing through UNT KE: we've been focussing on a number of funders, with IMLS in front; plan to submit to various funders at the same time KW: if you get a positive response from one, it's good to notify the other funder, who can then make adjustments

Action items