[Dspace-general] [Dspace-devel] DSpace 2.0 Direction

[Peter Morgan]

>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:52:10 -0400
>From: Mark Diggory <mdiggory at MIT.EDU>
>Subject: Re: [Dspace-devel] DSpace 2.0 Direction: (was Re: a new home
>	for	DSpaceObject?)
>To: DSpace Devel <dspace-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
>
>On Jul 5, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Robert Tansley wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I agree that this has happened too.  But IMO, what you refer to
>>> as "the team" needs to be self defining and sustaining going
further.
>>> Who are we? How do we govern ourselves? How does one become a 
>>>member?
>>
>> Actually by 'dedicated team' I meant people specifically funded/hired
>> to do the architectural heavy lifting; as in, it's their day job, not

>> something they're interweaving with other responsibilities.
>
>Hmm, although I'd welcome the effort, it makes me concerned about  
>community, governanace and decision making about the direction of the  
>code-base if its placed in the hands of someone paid by the  
>Foundation.  I've see something similar in other communities and  
>cannot say I liked the outcome, which resulted in something that was  
>less driven by the community and more driven by a select few in  
>positions of power.

[...]

>Mark
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Mark R. Diggory - DSpace Systems Manager
>MIT Libraries, Systems and Technology Services
>Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>Office: E25-131
>Phone: (617) 253-1096

Hi Mark,

The debate about the relative roles of the developer community and those
"in positions of power" has surfaced before and will doubtless remain a
regular item on the agenda.  (I'm cc'ing this to dspace-general as the
issues are not exclusively technical.) 

I'd like to make two points here.  First, my reading of the embryonic
DSpace governance process
http://wiki.dspace.org/index.php/DspaceGovernance is that the entire
structure of the not-for-profit DSpace corporation (executive director -
Board of Directors - members) is being designed to ensure that no one
person wields total control over the direction of the code-base
development.

Secondly, DSpace was designed to be, first and foremost, an
*institutional* repository platform.  The decision to adopt it (or
indeed to abandon it) will therefore ultimately be made by people in
positions of institutional power.  They're investing their institution's
resources and reputation in this decision, so they have to feel
confident that in committing to DSpace they're acquiring a sustainable
system that can be responsive to their needs.  I can't imagine any of
these people being willing to accept a future in which the direction of
DSpace's development was determined exclusively by the developer
community.  

I know you weren't proposing that, and similarly I'm not advocating that
institutional power-players should be solely responsible for determining
the way forward.  But I am suggesting that both sides of the equation
need to be addressed.  The size and vigour of the DSpace developer
community has been widely and rightly recognized as a major asset, but
the ability of individuals to contribute to the community depends
significantly on the willingness of their employers to sanction such a
use of their time, so it's vital to keep employers on board if we're to
ensure that this community commitment can continue to be available.
Getting the institution/developer balance right is really important -
but it won't be easy.

Peter

--
Peter Morgan
SPECTRa Project Director
Cambridge University Library
West Road
Cambridge
CB3 9DR
UK

email: pbm2 at cam.ac.uk
tel: +44 (0)1223 336757/333130
fax: +44 (0)1223 331918/339973  
www.lib.cam.ac.uk/spectra/