[Mike Foreman] Try it now. Here we go. [Nathan Hall] Thank you. And thank you, Alex, for pointing that out. [Kelly Altizer] Yeah good catch, Alex. [Nathan Hall] Yeah. [Mike Foreman] Let's go back to our structure, group structure, and discussion around those issues, would, let's continue with some comments on what that might look like for an advisory board for the digital library project. [Nathan Hall] Right before that, I just wanted to say that that was what [participant] was saying. That struck me. That was related to what [participant] was saying about accountability into the future. So anyway I was just pulling those two threads and tying them together. [Mike Foreman] Thank you, Nathan. [Speaker 1] And responding to the proactive, reactive part of it, at least some of the members of the board, I assume, would be representing the organizations that have an ownership information ownership relationship to the information that's going into the archives. And from that point of view, I would see that they would be proactive if an issue came up that require that. In terms of relationship with the University, is this a committee of the University, or is this a 501C3? Or some other form? [Mike Foreman] Other thoughts on the structural aspects of advisory board like this? [participant] and [participant]. Any thoughts? Haven't heard from you guys today yet? [Speaker 2] I'm going to add something. This is [participant]. Part of my brain says that every, every entity that has documents in the digital library should have a representative on there. But the other part of my brain says if you've got 100 organizations with digital information on the library, then that's gonna be an unwieldy board. So structure, it could be, you know, terms rotating, only so many people per board. You get your chance this year. They get their chance next year. Subcommittees, so that everybody should have a right to say something, but you didn't want a board that is so out of control with 100 people on it that you can't or, you know, you can't function. [Mike Foreman] Yeah. Great point, [Speaker 2] would you suggest a number that makes sense to you with regard to this project? Something like that. [Speaker 2] I don't know. Maybe between 6 and 12. [Mike Foreman] Okay. [Speaker 2] Perhaps. [Mike Foreman] Other thoughts on the number and/or structure of a board like this? Alright. Thank you all. Kelly, we'll go to our final question this afternoon. [Kelly Altizer] Yeah. Anyway. [Mike Foreman] Yes. Thank you. [Kelly Altizer] So we're curious to know what your thoughts are on the process of transferring leadership from the grant-funded project director at the University to this advisory board. That could look like elections on a volunteer basis to transfer things. Any thoughts on how that might best take shape? Or something, is there a process or tool or something that you would want to see that would help facilitate that transfer? [Mike Foreman] Kelly, just to remind everybody [Speaker 2's] point about having something written down that allows a common understanding of what the board's role and function and accountability issues are that would be a helpful start. [Kelly Altizer] fleshing out roles and responsibilities being a starting point. If again, this isn't a hypothetical, answering this question does not commit you to serving on the advisory board. But if you're gonna be on the advisory board and you were looking at this transfer, what what would you want in order for that to be successful? A lottery. That's an idea, right? You know, just drawing names. What would you want in place for that, or what would it look like for that to be successful? How would that happen comfortably and setting everybody on the right track? [Speaker 3] I'd propose definitely having like a transition period between when the when the grant funded project director is before they actually leave to actually just be, be a part of the board for, say, 6 months or so just to work with them. Just for the transition process. [Kelly Altizer] Okay. Great. Yeah. So some overlap and transition time to provide continuity and kind of a slower off-boarding. That sounds like a really interesting idea. Are there others who want to react to that or suggest complimentary are different approaches? [Speaker 4] I just think it would be wise to have a smaller committee, people who are willing to serve to study this, to study everything, and come up with recommendations. What we're trying to get here today might be better served by getting a 3 or 4, I don't know the exact number, 5 persons, who tackled this and they know that this is their mission. And they come, they become a think tank and come up with ideas about how to go about this. [Kelly Altizer] Okay. [Mike Foreman] Great. Thank you. [Kelly Altizer] Sherry, please go ahead. [Speaker 5] Thank you. Again, I'm just trying to absorb everything that everybody is saying today. I apologize for bird noises and dogs barking, should that become an issue. But my question I guess is this is the first time that I'm hearing that, and maybe I haven't been paying attention like I should have, but this is the first time I'm hearing that this is not going to be, that at some point, Nathan is not going to be a part of it, that this is not going to be Virginia Tech project that now we're moving to, this is going to be its own entity out here that's going to have to figure out how to navigate itself and provide information to Virginia Tech. So my question is one, pardon me if I've missed it, but what what time frame are you looking at here? I mean, are you saying that here by the end of August, there'll be an advisory board in place that Nathan will be a member of that advisory board may be in the short term, but gathering material, figure out who's going to be a part of this, how is this going to go on a database, etc, etc. That's all going to be an advisory board that does that? And again, I understand creating bylaws and I understand figuring out what the rules of the road are going forward, but it sounds, and correct me please, if I'm assuming incorrectly here, but it sounds like Virginia Tech is taking a step back and that this group will be out there figuring out who and what it wants to be when it grows up. And I thought that this was a project that Virginia Tech was doing to try to pull together an archive. And that may be a year from now, after it gets itself together, that Virginia Tech doesn't have to be a daily partner. So could I get, just for my own clarification, some sort of timeline as to how this goes on the Virginia Tech part? [Kelly Altizer] Yeah. Looks like Alex and Nathan, did you want to? [Nathan Hall] I'll let Alex go first. [Alex Kinnaman] Sure. I just wanted to comment not so much on the timeline as Nathan said, we don't have a firm timeline. This is something that we're hoping to come out of it. But in my opinion, Virginia Tech will always be involved. We just want to ensure that the important decisions are coming from the community and from the community as a group, as a whole. And that's what the advisory board should serve as. I don't envision us throwing this advisory board out into the woods to fend for itself. I think we would like to be there as much as you want as involved to help form and develop this sort of board. But that's just my interpretation. I'll let Nathan respond as well. [Nathan Hall] So what my goal here is, so many people here who have participated in this, in these sessions have shared a personal experience or effort anecdotally, anecdotally, or or someone who here knows someone who this would happen to you where they've worked with Virginia Tech. And the researcher comes in, they parachute in, they do the oral history project and they record it and then it gets deposited somewhere in the Library that no one has access to anymore. And they. Then that professor or researcher or project leader, it goes off to, they get some nice incredible job offer and they leave. And then everything just, just kinda falls apart because there's one person in charge of it. And I'm trying to make - these things happen in academia all the time. I don't have any plans to leave, but that's just the nature of academic jobs. And I want it to be, I want this project to be resilient and anticipate that these things happen. The university has attrition and that I don't want anyone who participated in this project to be able to say that their time was wasted. I want them to say, and that's partly, partly, that's one reason for the compensation so that you can at least say, well, at least I got paid. But also if I want to make myself or any other individual, Alex, Wen, whomever, the individuals should be eventually irrelevant, that we've built a program that can add that will outlast any attrition within the university. The library will continue to support this regardless of who is in, regardless of who's in the job that feels like doing it. So I don't want it to just be like Nathan's hobby. And when Nathan disappears or if Nathan disappears gets hit by the lottery bus, that the project ends at, this would be resilient to the reality of working in higher education. Does that does that help [Speaker 5]? [Speaker 5] Yes and I too have spent a good number of years in higher education, so I know how that works. But I just wanted to make sure that I was kind of understanding because it seemed like all of a sudden this was in a little bit of a quick step. In other words, that okay, now we're doing this but soon, very soon in a month or so, Virginia Tech will not be or may be a depository, but not necessarily as directly involved. And I thought that we were trying to help organizations or be a part of a group that helped various organizations in the Blue Ridge area get their archives accessible and be a part of something that would be a larger whole. And so I understand exactly what you're saying about needing it to have a home and needing there to be a group that should there be some changes here and there, I just was a little bit alarmed that it seemed to be happening quicker than I thought perhaps it was going to. But in terms of an advisory group, let me just echo a few things People have already said. One, all of us have had the unfortunate experience of being governed by committee. And that never works out. And also, I think you do very much need someone who has some kind of a title. If it's a director or if it's a chair, if it's a something, but somebody has to have some kind of a title through which small decisions and ordinary everyday operating procedures have to run. Because again, if you have to get 12 people, if that's the size of your board or even 6 people, if all those people have to respond to an email for what the lunch order is today, and I'm using that as a silly example, but you know what I mean? Then you'll never get lunch. It'll be next week that we could get lunch because that many people can't get back together again, that quick to say. So I do think there has to be a head of government as it were. And then an advisory board that meets. And certainly the head is going to need to send out a lot of e-mail or maybe have several different Zoom meetings to inform the board of things that are going on. But I see it as a governing board like any other. As far as down the road, and again, you asked me because you said I wasn't participating, so now I'm going to take off. [overlapping voices] But anyway, I think that in terms of how this goes, in terms of bylaws, I think the, I'm not saying write a book of bylaws. But I think having a good set of strong bylaws is really important because if some point down the road after grant funding ends and you have to sustain yourselves, then if you go out to funders, they don't want to see a wishy-washy set of nebulous concepts. They want to see some bylaws and they want to see that people have been adhering to those and that their policies and directions in place because they're not really big on giving money to nebulousness. So I think bylaws are important. And with that, I yield the floor. [Kelly Altizer] Love it. Thank you, [Speaker 5]. [Nathan Hall] I love the lunch example because that exact thing happened to my wife and one of her committees about two-and-a-half weeks ago. [Kelly Altizer] Oh no! [Nathan Hall] Yeah. Luckily, the entire board, the entire committee overruled the chair about like, yes, we're actually going to take a lunch break and this four-hour meeting. [Mike Foreman] I think in that case, you just want a pizza with everything on it, then everybody is satisfied, right? [Nathan Hall] So I think one person went out to grab grab a lunch order from takeout, but yeah, the committee chair in that in that instance wanted to end early and therefore not, just skip through, work through lunch. And some people had woken up at 5:00 A.M. and driven 3 hours to get there and weren't inclined to skip lunch, So yeah. Yeah. You're absolutely right. We're not going to, we don't want to have small decisions. I mean, there are certain things that if it's a matter of process and how do things get in and how are things represented that we have Wen here who governs a lot of that workflow in terms of preservation, we've got Alex here who governs a lot of that workflow. In terms of MOA's Alex has, has inherited a lot of the, um, language to the point where I can't remember who, Alex, who's allowed to sign off? Is it the dean right now or who gets to be signatory on the on the on the partner agreement, on the MOA? [Alex Kinnaman] One second let me look. That's a great question. It is just a representative of Virginia Tech and a representative of the holding institution. [Nathan Hall] Okay. So there's that decision and I think the advisory group would be, would be able to say like, yes, this is a good fit for this initiative. Or here's some other areas that we should be exploring. Kinda like what [participant] was saying when he was here that, you know, are we getting a good enough representation in the collections that we're, that we're, that we're hosting. [Kelly Altizer] Additional thoughts? Again, the question where we started, though there's definitely a space for answering another question as well, but this is about the transfer of leadership from the grant funded project director to this group? [Mike Foreman] Kelly, I could see back to [speaker 5]'s point, the documented bylaws, explicitly detailing what the decisions could be made by what party, right. That could be it could be a part of any document that's developed because of the advisory boards. [Alex Kinnaman] I did like [speaker 4]'s idea of having a very small group explore what this really will look like and then establishing the larger committee. I thought, I think that seems reasonable, and sustainable. And that's just coming from someone who's been on community executive boards and groups. I think that that works well, in my experience. I liked that. [Kelly Altizer] Any other thoughts on the questions we've already talked about, but also just sort of your expectations for how this might work, what it might look like, what the folks on the board might do. Yes, [speaker 6], please go ahead. [Speaker 6] Actually as I was, I need to say that, I apologize if my participation has been a bit intermittent this afternoon. I look to Century Link as my Internet outage provider so occasionally I go out back in and re-signing in, and so some, some of the conversation I've heard some I have not heard. One of the things that is occurring to me, I represent the Greene County Historical Society. And quite frankly, last time I looked at a map, we're not in Southwest Virginia. And so, to some degree a lot of the details of the advisory board issues and structure and organization I think is more pertinent to somebody in the Southwest Virginia area to actually be representing things there. But in a more fundamental level, I guess what I'm thinking, being from Greene County and this being a Southwest Virginia initiative really, is first of all, clarity of mission statement. And ultimately, I think as you, once, there's a transition from, say, a single grant-based thing to maybe a 501C3 or some other type of organization. We'll probably want to be accepting grants. And so that's where the mission roles and everything else, not just the management body, so to speak. I think that becomes much, much more necessary to have clarity of mission and focus. That's all. [Kelly Altizer] Thank you. [speaker 6]. Nathan, did you want to, I know you've touched on it briefly before, but I'm just wondering if you could speak again to just that point about the organizations being involved who are not explicitly from what Southwest Virginia, I know that there have been several along the way. [Nathan Hall] Yes. So when we wrote the grant, we scoped it out for Southwestern Virginia. That's what we called it, the digital library too is, specifically said Southwest Virginia. But sometimes, I mean, we've got one collection that's from the town of Crewe which is somewhere between Lynchburg in Richmond, I think. So it's another, like, I don't know if it's coastal plains or Piedmont, but it's not Southwestern Virginia. [Mike Foreman] That's in Nottoway County, Nathan. In Nottoway County right in the Piedmont. So I'll answer that for us. [Nathan Hall] Okay. Thank you. So anyway, with, in terms of the scope of the project, we've talked about energy and environment, and labor and transportation in the original grant. And in the way that we talked about it, it could really be Appalachia, Mid-Atlantic Appalachia is all kind of relevant. So West Virginia and North Carolina and Tennessee and the border areas with Virginia are all relevant, and then and then Virginia as well. So there's, I'd say the border is poorly defined. I'd rather be inclusive than exclusive. I have no problem with Greene County being a part of this or even being a leading institution within, within with representation in an advisory board. It's really, rather than thinking of it as a digital library of Southwest Virginia, it's a digital library that's in southwestern Virginia. [Kelly Altizer] Thank you. [Nathan Hall] That's how I think about it now. And of course, if there is an advisory board, they'd probably weigh in on that on that scope and that border. [Kelly Altizer] Thank you. Other ideas, questions, things that you would want to talk through if you were creating this advisory board or are about to join it or interested in how it was going to run or represent your organization. What would you want to know? What would you want it to look like? It'd be working on and doing? [Alex Kinnaman] I liked how you phrased that question. What would you like to be working on? I think that's really important for us to understand. To help support such an advisory board. [Kelly Altizer] Any thoughts, ideas, lingering questions? Is there anything, I know many of you bring just like a wide variety of backgrounds, experienced participation and, you know, volunteer experiences in boards. Hi, [speaker 5], please go ahead. [Speaker 5] You may regret it. [Kelly Altizer] I love it, Mike Foreman is not going to call anyone out ever again after this. [Mike Foreman] It just proves how successful that technique is, [speaker 5]! [Kelly Altizer] That's great. [Speaker 5] Well, let me just say that. Here's just a wild, random thought on my part that I want everybody to feel free to roll their eyes and dismiss. But if you're getting started on something and you need this to be of a broader scope, then I should think that those people who have been participants thus far, if you could start your collection with those people who have been participants thus far who were willing to participate, you can sell it better to other people. If you say, well, we already have X, Y, and Z organizations from Virginia or wherever your Mid-Atlantic or wherever you might want to go from. But you have a group right now of organizations that can at least be your seed, and then you can go sell it. Because everybody here knows people from somewhere else who run the same types of organizations, other libraries in other places, other historical societies in other places, that they could then contact and say, I've had this good experience. We worked with them. This is how we did this project. So it might not it might not be gangbusters immediately, but perhaps for a couple of months, 2, 3 months, 4 months as you gather other people's stuff. And then you have a database that people can connect to that you can say you don't have to necessarily believe me. Here's the here's the website. Go look at it. We've put our information out there. You can sell it easier if you have something to actually sell. And I think your initial, and again, I'm saying this after governance is created, your initial move forward has to be growing your database. So start with who you have and then grow from the fact that you have something to show them. [Kelly Altizer] That's a really interesting point. We haven't talked about, you know, what it looks like in the future, right. And I like your idea. You're making me think that we talked about the different roles and what an advisory board membership might be asked to do and that idea that they might, it might, we might be asking folks to reach out to your networks, consider who you might want to be bringing into the project, is perhaps one role that would be a good fit for the advisory board membership. That's really interesting point. [Mike Foreman] Kelly, to [speaker 6]'s point about creation of a mission statement for the board and having that be when the core elements of a mission statement makes quite a bit of sense to me. Yeah. [Kelly Altizer] Any other ideas, thoughts, questions about those components or others that have occurred to you or that you would want to talk through? Mike, do you want to go then to our last question? [Mike Foreman] Yeah. Kelly, maybe before we get there, maybe just take a minute with each of the questions and maybe summarize what we've got. Would you, if you start out with your notes on number one, I'll go to two and so forth just for a minute or two. I think that would help folks collect the thoughts for our final questions. [Kelly Altizer] Sure. So we talked, the first question was about the scope of authority and what role you would expect it to have. And then I think Alex had also added the question that I'm trying to remember it because I thought it was helpful. Alex, do you remember what that was? [Alex Kinnaman] Yes. What activities and decisions fall under the responsibility of this committee? I'll add that to the document. [Kelly Altizer] Oh, thank you, yeah. So when you're talking about scope of authority, it's also like what will they be doing, right? So in our discussion, we talked along the lines of accountability to help the library be accountable and the outreach to make sure that they're getting input from a good cross-section of the community and that's representative of the different types of community members that exist in the area. Also having a mix of folks who have credentials and who don't have credentials to bring a diversity of perspectives to the advisory board. Also, that there's representation from individuals and institutions that are contributing to the archives. I think later we heard the idea of having membership only comprise of people who are, or organization is contributing to the archive. So that would be a point of discussion along the way. And then the need to talk about parameters such as can, group members be kicked out, can others decide to kick group members out? Is this group, what is the process for determining what does or does not make it into the archive. Those types of decisions perhaps being captured in the by-laws. So that's sort of the summary of feedback we heard from question one. Mike, do you want to go to the next one. [Mike Foreman] Yes. For question two is just around the time commitment and we heard about perhaps starting off with more frequent meetings, maybe monthly to get started. And as the board matured and evolved a little bit spaces, needs out, you know, as, as necessary. That was early concept I think that makes quite a bit of sense. Also the support, not necessarily on board itself if you don't feel like serving on a board, but there's an activity or event that is based on this project, that the board is supporting, then maybe participants can just be supportive of that event or project and not be a part of the board. So sort of a one-time contribution or several times perhaps. We also offered some ideas around having a chair and maybe the chair as all with most organizations that have chairs and other types of committee leads that they chair would put in a little bit more time and also be the liaison with the university lead. And those two would be a, have a close bond and make sure that the board is serving the university well and vice versa. I believe that's basically my responses for question two, Kelly. [Kelly Altizer] I think the only other note was about subcommittees. I think that there might be, they could foresee being subcommittee membership involved as well. [Mike Foreman] Okay. Thanks. That's great. [Kelly Altizer] Question three about structure. We've already mentioned the possibility of a chair and there was a question about if there would be a lead administrator who reports to the board and whether the group would be proactive or reactive. Also that if you're assuming that board members are representative of organizations who are participating in the archive, perhaps it would be inclined to be more proactive because of that relationship. And then also the idea that if you want to give all organizations who are participating in the archive the opportunity to participate in the advisory board, but if you reach a large number of organizations, which hopefully the archive will, that 100% board is unrealistic. So perhaps a smaller number with term limits, you know, a rotating opportunity to give everyone the opportunity to engage, but also being realistic about the sort of effective number of people involved in decision-making. And then there was the question about whether this would be a committee of the university or become its own 501C3. And what type of decision-making methods that exist around that. [Mike Foreman] Thanks, Kelly. Go ahead. [Kelly Altizer] No, I'm kicking it back to you. [Mike Foreman] Yeah. So a question, the last question of our formal set of questions around the process of transferring leadership from a grant-funded project director to an advisory board sort of group and heard a little bit about the idea of a transition period to ensure that there's continuity, however long that is or however long the Virginia Tech project director serves in the main role. There's probably some nuance there and some ideas in a frame of time, but not nothing pinpointed. The idea of a smaller committee at first to start out with, to create that, create the framework for an advisory board to perhaps get some draft agreement or by-laws together, a document that can direct an advisory board together, developed by the smaller committee first for maybe constituted 3 or 3 to 5 people and meet for a couple of times before anything formalizes and this advisory board is constituted. It came up, and seemed to have some mild supports Perhaps we'll talk about that in just a few minutes and see if that's a good first step in all this. There were some comments around, for the people who are participating initially and have participated through these four meetings that we gather, use those participants first to create sort of a seed base of digital archive material in order to continue to promote and promote the project and bring in on new partners and other people to be involved, other organizations. Some question around the scope, geographic scope, again, I think it seems to be very inclusive and Nathan has expressed as point number of times through these sessions about being inclusive, not only Southwest Virginia, but extending the borders of Appalachia and the mid-Atlantic region here. I think I'll stop there, Kelly Altizer. [Kelly Altizer] You want to move then to the last question? [Mike Foreman] Yeah. Sure. First maybe check-in with Nathan and Alex and Wen about the idea of perhaps a smaller group of people starting out to frame and form the advisory board. Would that be a reasonable idea for all of you to consider? Is that okay? Wanted to see if that was consensus agreement on that, Nathan and Alex. [Nathan Hall] I guess it depends what you mean by small. I had a number somewhere 5-12 and my head all along. [Mike Foreman] Yeah. [Nathan Hall] And if you had 12, I mean, this has been the smallest participant- wise meeting that we've had so far. I think our largest was probably closer to maybe 20 when you count the facilitators. [overlapping voices] Yeah. I think it might just depend with a number like this. If everyone who participated for the people that we have here, I mean, that's that's a that's a good start as a bare minimum. But I think I'm not too worried about having too many people initially. But if we have like, like was discussed 100 participants, it'd be nice if they got updates on board activities and on what the digital archive is doing. And then occasional, annual or semiannual calls for, oh, we need a new board members and here's nominate yourself for a nominate someone else. And that's how we get the rotation. And so yeah, 5 to 12 and is kind of the number I had in mind just because if you get too big, it's unwieldy. If it's too small, it might, it's not representative enough. [Mike Foreman] Sure. I think the idea from [speaker 4] was maybe even a smaller group, Nathan, just to start out with to sort of frame it up a little bit better, and then as, as this group forms the rules of the road around this advisory board, then we could as a group reach out and increase in number to the 5 to 12 that you're talking about. But I think believe, [speaker 4], that was the idea that you had come come up with. Is that fair representation of your thoughts, sir? [Speaker 4] Yeah. I was thinking that this study be dedicated to coming up with some recommendations to bring back to the larger group. Give them [unintelligible] we're trying to do it here. But as you know, I'm thinking that we have something in front of us talk about, you know, it would just be a better outcome. [Nathan Hall] Wen and then to Alex, what do you think of the question about the numbers and scope? [Alex Kinnaman] I can go first. I definitely have opinions. So what I'm hearing are kind of like three different stages for this. The first stage being the small group investigating and reporting back, establishing an Advisory Board from there and then having a community that is supporting an advisory board, but not necessarily at the monthly meetings, but would get the e-mail updates and attend annual or biannual meetings. And I like that progression. I think that makes sense to include as many people as wanted in the community. Community is probably confusing here, in the large, big group of everyone that's interested. And then having a smaller subset for an advisory board. I like that structure from personal experience and that's kinda what I was hearing. I think. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of that, but those were my thoughts. [Mike Foreman] Wen, would you have any- yeah, please go ahead. [Wen Nie Ng] Thank you for the clarification, Alex. I personally prefer a small group too, especially when it comes to a, we actually have a constraint on time and decision have to make quick. And based on my experience, we also at Digital Virginias, we also have this strategy team where it consists of the main few members making decision quick and whenever it actually requiring our other members to be involved, we will have this group meeting on a monthly basis or bi- weekly basis. I forgot. But yeah. I think that's a good idea. [Nathan Hall] And Wen, you mentioned DPLA before, you mentioned in your, in your, in your presentation earlier you mentioned DPLA, and just now you mentioned Digital Virginia's. Can you can you define the relationship between those two real quick? [Wen Nie Ng] Sure. Thank you for bringing that up, Nathan. So the DPLA Digital, what is that called, with all public library? Um, they are taking the metadata from institutions. So that [unintelligible] can be shown on their public interface. And there are two ways of giving them the metadata wrappers. One is through the service hub, and another one is called the content hub. The content hub are big institutions that provide the DPLA a large numbers of records, such as the New York Public Library, and the other one, service hub, is a, like a mediator in-between smaller institutions. And we are a part of Digital Virginias, which is the service hub. So what they do is they coming out with a set of requirements for the XML files for metadata. They actually check the metadata before we send it over to the DPLA. And Digital Virginias, which in our case is a member of this service hub. [Mike Foreman] Thank you, all three of you for your comments and perspectives offered here this afternoon. So what I'm hearing, Kelly, is that the question remains basically the same, but it really for me, I would offer that the question really is, can we ask for a few volunteers to be to begin the work on a steering committee or some sort of smaller group first, before we jump into an advisory board. I think just from my own common knowledge and experience. I mean, perhaps advisory work could get started fairly quickly, but may take a month or two or so for the steering, the smaller groups work to manifest itself into some documents and such that sets the framework for the larger advisory group's work. So Kelly, would you have anything different to offer or comments on that? [Kelly Altizer] I'm would just say that I know Nathan mentioned a few of the participants who've joined along the way, but who are not able to participate today, I think because of the recording, I think that those folks could easily watch, see all the ground we've covered today and still join in that capacity if they were so inclined. So I'm hopeful that those of you who are here today might want to participate, but also just to say, I think we could open it up to the other group as well. [Mike Foreman] So I would say folks that we're looking for a small group to volunteer to begin this work. And I don't see why it couldn't start fairly quickly. Perhaps after the 4th of July, before the end of July, somewhere in somewhere there if folks are willing to begin that conversation. So the question is, can we, can we find some volunteers and some helpers to get this project go in and off the ground. Who would like to raise raise a hand for us this afternoon? [Kelly Altizer] Nathan and Alex. [Mike Foreman] Nathan and Alex, I've got them. [Kelly Altizer] If they don't volunteer, then we're in trouble. Go ahead, please, Alex. [Alex Kinnaman] I assume we're involved for sure. I'd like to add time commitments. I assume a couple of hours spaced out over a few weeks in meeting times. I think that would be the initial time commitment if that helps kinda set that up for folks. [Mike Foreman] I think that's true. I would envision two or three meetings of an hour or more in length to sort of set the stage. [Speaker 4] If you want me out, I'll, I'll volunteer. [Kelly Altizer] Our first volunteer! [Mike Foreman] Then you are the cat's meow. [Speaker 2] And I'm sure between [participant] or I, one of us will want since we're both of the same organization. [overlapping voices] [Nathan Hall] I love how involved Floyd has been throughout, Floyd Library, Jesse Peterman Library in Floyd has been throughout, so um, yeah, so I'm glad, I'd be excited to have you on. [Mike Foreman] Thank you. [Speaker 1] And I don't know if I would be involved anyhow as a consultant. I'm happy to volunteer. [Mike Foreman]Great. [Nathan Hall] Thank you. [Mike Foreman]Thanks, [speaker 1]. I did before [participant] left, ask him and he said he'd think about it, so that's possible as well before he scooted out on us this afternoon. [Nathan Hall] And as Kelly mentioned we can send an email out to the broader group. [Kelly Altizer] Yeah. [Mike Foreman] That may be a good start. Now I would put out, [speaker 5], that people who have talked the most today sort of get an automatic invitation. I didn't know if that was appropriate for Friday afternoon or not, but clearly, that's there. [Speaker 5] Well [speaker 1] and I are in the same organization, so I'm not sure you want two of us from the same place. [Mike Foreman] Fair enough. Well, very good. I think we've got a good start. Kelly, would you add anything at the moment? [Kelly Altizer] No, I think that's great, thanks to those who volunteered to get the ball rolling and recognizing that there are lots of interested folks who, who might want to contribute, so you're not alone. I know that there's enthusiasm and many different directions, [overlapping voices] [Mike Foreman] Go ahead, please. [Speaker 4] Will someone take the onus to contact we volunteers, and [speaker 5], I want to thank you for speaking up today. You voiced my concerns. [Mike Foreman] Fantastic. Thank you. Yes. We'll work with Nathan and Alex to get something organized, [speaker 4]. [Nathan Hall] And we'll have we've got, the capacity came up earlier today. Like how many, what if we have, I think [speaker 5] use the term gangbusters with 100 organizations and we absolutely do not have that capacity right now. And Wen has brought up to me concerns about workflow and what remains to be defined just in terms of how we move things into the digital library. And, but that said, we're on a push to, and we're very close to having several collections launched in public. And we're just about ready to start helping more groups, I think so. I know that I feel like I've heard from Floyd repeatedly. And [participant] has certainly said that maybe it was the, well between the Historical Society and the library. There's a number of things, materials that are probably more prepared for going in. I know that you don't have like a list of like here's here's our collection, it's ready to go, but, um, but I hope to visit you soon in person and to see what's going on there. And I know there's yeah. So I plan to do some some visiting soon, but also. With, Floyd Historical Society is not here, but Wen's already been working with some of that metadata and asking me questions about it and asking them questions about it. So we are ready to probably expand it in terms of the collections. We are just happy to start slow. [Mike Foreman] Great. Well, Nathan and Alex, our agenda speaks to some summary and next steps presented by you. Would you like to offer some closing comments and where we're headed? We talked a little bit about it throughout the last hour or so, but maybe some specifics and thoughts about the survey, post-meeting survey as well. [Nathan Hall] I think I just spoke to next steps and that was Wen and I reaching out about collection ingest, just kinda get those balls rolling. And then we will, we've discussed how we'll move forward with governance and the small group and getting an invite out to the larger set of participants to see who's, who would be involved on the Steering Committee, but also who'd be involved in that initial work for the smaller group. So that's really what I think the next steps were. And I'll let Alex talk about survey. [Mike Foreman] Thanks. [Alex Kinnaman] So actually, I would like to make sure I don't forget to say that our last session, I promised to send out the Memorandum of Agreement slides. And I haven't done so because I am working on that translation of each section of the MOA to send along with it. And I'm still investigating some of the questions that we had from last session. So once we have all of that in order, I'll be sending three slide decks, a glossary, and a translation guide open for comments and reviews. So hopefully that will be useful to you all to kinda get another review of the MOA and all of the crazy information it has. As far as our follow-up survey, we sent out a pre-workshop survey for you all to fill out to gauge where people were coming from, what their needs were, how familiar they were with this. So our post workshop survey will be very similar to that, so that we may gauge internally the effectiveness of this workshop to get any last minute feedback from groups. And then this will be used as a deliverable for our grant, but not necessarily made public the results. Nathan, am I missing anything else with the post-survey? [Nathan Hall] I don't think so. [Alex Kinnaman] Okay. And of course, please reach out with any follow-up thoughts or questions, comments, concerns. Just because our sessions will be ending formally does not mean we are not reachable. We would still love to have these conversations on an ongoing basis. [Nathan Hall] Oh, and also for next steps. As I mentioned at the beginning, one of my priorities over the next month is invoicing. The term of the grant ends in August and I have to have all the money spent. So that's on a short timeline for that. That means I'll be reaching out about, about compensation for participants, so I will be in touch. [Mike Foreman] Thank you all. What anybody have any last comments, questions, or suggestions for us as we close today? [Alex Kinnaman] Just another huge thank you from me for everyone, for participating and providing feedback. All of this is really helpful for us at Tech and hopefully will be helpful to the community at large once we get things rolling. So we really appreciate it. [Mike Foreman] Thanks, Alex. [Nathan Hall] Absolutely true. Yeah. I can I said it before. I'll say it again. I can't overemphasize the value of this has had on, on this initiative and also on the digital library community in general. [Mike Foreman] Great. [Speaker 1] The facilitation has been wonderful. [Mike Foreman] Thanks [speaker 1]. [Kelly Altizer] Kind of you. [Mike Foreman] Appreciate it. If Nathan has to get his money spent by the end of August and perhaps, you know, he'll look to Charlottesville as well for sending something. Thank you, that was kind of you. [Nathan Hall] I was joking with a colleague about that not long ago. About what other services can we ask for? [Mike Foreman] Thank you all. Kelly, anything from you? [Kelly Altizer] No, it's been great working with all of you and I really look forward to seeing the digital archive. I always am interested to see what becomes of projects that we connect with. So I'm really looking forward to it. [Mike Foreman] Thank you all. Appreciate again your time and we'll close this Friday afternoon. And those who volunteered you'll be hearing from us and we'll go to the next phase of this project. Thank you all very much. Have a good day.