What outcome(s) would you like to see resulting from the May Meeting?

Themes:
Community, Cooperation, Partnerships, Communication,
Roadmap, Framework, Scope definition, Action

Word cloud of responses as of 2017-05-01 4:00pm EDT

Word cloud of responses as of 2017-05-01 4:00pm EDT


Subcommittees to work on separate data sources.

I would like to see a framework for the continued preservation of federal (and possibly even state) generated research. I.E. coming up with a plan to not just save the data already in existence, but a way to continue to preserve it as new data is generated.

Better definition and prioritization of the challenges facing the open federal data community

Without seeing the agenda, I'm not sure yet, but hopefully a plan to work collaboratively together will emerge.

A cooperative group, possibly a listserv or communication tool to see what libraries are working on.

A strategic plan / roadmap for next steps to move forward on long-term preservation. Also a more comprehensive list of stakeholders and a communication plan for sharing information.

I would like to see more organizations take on the responsibility, and contribute resources towards, collecting, preserving, and providing open, online, public access to government data -- and do these things at the scale the problem requires. The problem is not at all a new one. What limited broader participation in this effort in the past? Are institutions more willing to do this now? If so, in what way and how can others help? If not, why not and what can others do to convince them?

A roadmap for continued collaboration

We would like to see several outcomes from the May meeting: (1) A strategic roadmap that includes future and current partners and collaborators; (2) steps towards surveying the data agreements between the government and other actors (i.e., federal data centers held in collaboration with universities and deposited data funded by federal grants in sites like ICPSR or Dryad); and (3) an outline of metadata, storage, and preservation plans that includes a survey of the standards and options already available today.

Partnerships between archiving institutions centered around collaborative, open metadata curation goals.

Agreed upon collaborative effort and plan

A path towards a cross-data-community partnership in service of data stability

A framework for setting up a network that will establish and carry out long term preservation efforts for federally-hosted and federally-funded datasets

"Closer knit community with more communication, that builds on Data Refuge communication and partnerships between scientists & scientific orgs, libraries, universities, federal govt
A synthesis of the ideas that emerge at the meeting, that identifies common goals and potential paths ( a ""manifesto"" perhaps?!)"

Continued building and strengthening of diverse community working on this. Some scoping work. Some ideas for a framework that can practically guide decision-making: which data? how vulnerable is it? how much curation should it get (different identified levels)? how much commitment? how user/demand-driven vs. supply-driven? What are the biggest gaps to be addressed?

a clearly defined call for participation from libraries regarding federal data backups, a plan for some kind of program to ensure comprehensive backups of everything (working through gov't offices, systematically combing through websites etc)

more ways to engage young people

proposed governance & funding commitments for coordinated work in policy advocacy & infrastructure development

plan for expanding beyond climate and environment

Some discussion of the law and policy changes that could alter the creation and availability of government data in the future.

(1) A good definition of the task ahead, (2) a clear understanding of how we could leverage existing strengths of the library community to build the Data Refuge infrastructure and services we need, (3) a clear understanding of who non-library partners are and how we could best work with them to build a robust, resilient infrastructure, (4) a list of tangible, concrete next steps.

I'd like better cooperation and cultural understanding between the scientists and librarians and hackers. We all need each other to do this project. Defined working groups and an agreement on overall guiding principles and priorities. If we can accomplish that, we are in good shape. Working groups on specific issues would be great. Ideas for how to fund this would be amazing - and will be necessary. Anything else would be delicious gravy.

Identify existing repositories that will hold the data long-term. An initial, open and coordinated list of next sites to get data from.

Identify overlapping resourced activities; collaborate

substantive movement on both of the above.

Concrete plans on how to start moving forward to address these issues in a coordinated fashion. Are there small steps we start piloting to more systematically and sustainably approach this problem. For example, how can institutions respond to these needs? Do they need dedicated staff and budgets assigned to data rescue efforts? It seems like much of the work of data rescue events is done outside and on top of regular work hours (weekends, evenings), which can limit involvement to those that have the ability (and lack of other commitments) to devote this kind of time and energy to the project. The same concern applies to some depository libraries in the FDLP that barely have the resources to support current online and print collections, let alone archiving online content which requires additional resources and staff time (see Biennial Survey of Depository Libraries <https://www.fdlp.gov/file-repository/biennial-survey>). Extending the FDLP to online data and resources requires specialized skills in digital curation and time that many depository libraries do not have - if this is expected, than there need to be appropriate investments in training, staff, and time resources to ensure this is sustainable. Unfunded mandates are not sustainable.
Clear articulation of the goal of all this work. Are we simply creating a "backup" of whatever is on the web, in its messy, unorganized, undocumented current state? Or are we actually trying to ensure government information remains publicly accessible, findable, and usable in the future? The Data Rescue events have been doing the former on a wide swath of data; long standing archives have been doing the latter on a very small portion of data. With the former, even though a copy (that we can prove through explicit chain of custody that it is the "real" copy) exists in the DataRefuge repository or other places, it's not actually usable in the current state if the originating federal website went down or if someone tried to actually use the data that is archived. Providing the chain of custody information is not curation and will not help anyone understand or make use of the data on its own.

I would like to see a commitment made (some kind of statement) about the need for libraries to engage in ongoing preservation work with born digital government information and also the beginnings of a grant proposal to help support this work.

Clearly identified purpose(s) of effort; clarity in scope of effort (or serious attempt to define scope); Identify key issues to be addressed towards identified purpose and who will investigate these issues; Identify other stakeholders who need to be included in effort.

Better understanding of the many disconnected efforts emerging nationally.

a coalition of interested parties to help with preservation... not everyone can do everything but is there a part, big or small, for interested institutions or people to play. a platform for action and advocacy to influence agencies and lawmakers to promote preservation and long-term access and to advocate the need for government sponsored data, not moving toward privatized efforts

A vision and scope statements, and governance structure that allow for near and long-term work of the consortium

Solid plan of action moving forward that identifies both needs and directions for stakeholders in this monumental undertaking.

Clarity about the future state that we’re trying to achieve, and about the distribution of roles and responsibilities of the organizations and institutions interested in this issue.

Some clarity on how to coordinate and assure similar standards and workflows for those who contribute to the efforts

Of the three challenges above, the one that gates progress is #3: resources. All the feel-good ideas are valuable: cast a wide net; build networks across communities; work with government agencies; make sure all work and all technology is open- open – open; etc. I urge the group to consider the two prongs of making this a sustainable venture: (1) Costs: What are start up costs, what are continuing costs, and at all points in the deliberation work to drive down costs. (2) Where are funding opportunities?

A general consensus around what a plan of action for providing long term access and preservation to at risk government data should include. Investment and commitment from stakeholders to further develop and invest into this plan. A road map for moving forward with the plan.

I would like to gain some confidence that this will continue as something other than a series of ad hoc activities in reaction to a particular political environment.
In other words -- this is a problem that existed prior to November 8, it will extend beyond 2020.

1) Agreement on the scope of the problem;
2) Development of a strategic plan;
3) Establish strategies to avoid duplication of effort and promote communication across stakeholders

Outlines of approaches that can and will be sustained

good infrastructure, best practices, next steps on what is outlined above.

better understanding (of all involved) of who is engaged, helping. shared priorities. dedicated intent to not let this become siloed or overly academic / have an honest convo about opportunities + challenges