Software Carpentry Foundation Interim Board Meeting: Oct 14, 2014
- Jenny Bryan (Univ of British Columbia)
- Josh Greenberg (Sloan Foundation)
- Katy Huff (UC Berkeley)
- Damien Irving (University of Melbourne)
- Neil Chue Hong (Software Sustainability Institute)
- Adam Stone (Berkeley Lab)
- Tracy Teal (Michigan State / Data Carpentry)
- Kaitlin Thaney (Mozilla Science Lab, audio only)
- Greg Wilson (Software Carpentry)
- David Ascher (Mozilla) - on Etherpad, but not on call
- Board: next meeting on Tue Nov 4 (same time)
- Board: submit corrections/extensions to governance doc via pull requests by Oct 24
- DI + GW + NCH + KT: define process for communication and issue escalation among workshop coordinators
- KT + JG + JB + NCH: talk about GW's salary from Nov 1
- AS + KH: arrange AS access to GitHub repositories
- JB + KH: transfer ownership of draft grants material to Software Carpentry board group
- GW: find out how much notice we need to give NumFOCUS to have a rep attend a board meeting
- GW: re-add note to governance doc about SCF board deciding scope of SWC project
- GW: circulate minutes from last two meetings for approval before putting in public repository
- KH + TT + GW will be signatores on the NumFOCUS FSA
- Documents stored in two GitHub repositories
- Public (things go here by default): https://github.com/swcarpentry/board
- Private: https://github.com/swcarpentry/board_pvt
- Send minutes to board mailing list for correction/redaction of personal information
- Put into public repository one week after meeting
- Workshop coordinators promote issues to project lead as needed
- Project lead promotes to board as needed
- Coordinators may go directly to the board if they feel it appropriate
- Date of next meeting
- GW: propose Tue Nov 4 3:30 EDT
- NCH: may not be able to do it
- passes: if NCH is unable to make it, choose a chair closer to the day
- Final approval for signing up with NumFOCUS
- KH, TT, GW as signatories
- Mechanics of storing SCF documents (KH)
- Public Repo : https://github.com/swcarpentry/board
- minutes will hold summaries of the chat window
- Private Repo : https://github.com/swcarpentry/board_pvt
- Board Team : https://github.com/orgs/swcarpentry/teams/board
- Procedure for when we make things public?
- e.g. minutes
- Once there is a milestone version, we can introduce a period of review on the listhost
- After a week of discussion on the listhost, things will become public.
- Should grants stuff go in board_pvt?
- Probably not but once we have time to discuss this (probably not today) we can tackle that.
- Discussion of governance and core vs non-core activities
- Re-add note about board deciding scope of Software Carpentry (what's in/what's out)
- Do we think that it is useful to have a NumFOCUS rep observe at the Board meetings?
- NumFocus have offered to attend Board meetings
- Do we need the governance document to be in particular format (for legal reasons)?
- Yes, soon but not immediately
- Who fights copyright / trademark ?
- NumFOCUS (because they will own the trademarks)
- Q: what can/should be handled by admin staff like Arliss, what needs to be pushed up to the board?
- proposal: admins promote to the project lead as needed, project lead promotes to the board as needed, admins encouraged to go direct to the board if they feel appropriate
- Discussion of budget
- Josh: "SCF = steward of the public goods for SWC". Institutional partners contribute to SCF to support that.
- Who organises the "special" workshops, like WiSE workshops? (or little efforts by, say, grad students, who don't have easy access to funding streams or event coordination abilities)
- Does a central "workshop coordinator of last resort" need to paid by taxing institutional contributors?
- Are there any funders who would support this? Possibly not?
- why would institutions be happier paying for program management than for coordination?
Can we make it so that institutional partner contributions aren't calculated such that early contributors don't end up paying more because they are subsidising the lack of other contributors?
- From the chat:
- DI: Whatever happened to each individual workshop giving money for core?
- GW: we've been asking for donations - hasn't been particularly successful
- JB: Re: a donation to support a specific workshop, how do we feel about a donation to support development of curriculum for specific topic?
- DI: At UniMelb we are getting money from the Australian National Data Service to develop capstone examples using Australian data
- DI: Does [organization's] contribution to the 'core' have to be money?
- GW: alternatives?
- DI: Not sure. I just know that [some orgs] will probably not want to contribute money to core.
- JG: the only "in kind" support to core budget lines according to my strict definition would be salary for the project leads (not workshop coordination)
- TT: I'm a little concerned that all workshop coordination is being 'outsourced' to institutional partners, and it makes it hard to coordinate as a whole
- JB: It would be hard to get grant money to SWCF to support workshop coordination. That should be for curriculum development and advocacy.
- DI: At what point do you become an institution that is doing so much SWC stuff that they should start giving money? 3 workshops a year? More? Less?
GW: overhead to ramp up on workshop coordination machinery is (unfortunately) considerable at the moment, so volunteers stepping in to coordinate a workshop now and again is impractical
Dialogue & Discussion
You can review our commenting policy here.